VC investing is effectively predatory pricing, squeezing out original non-tech service providers by providing services below cost, then replacing them with monopoly tech versions. The funding is intimately tied to the industry and they all use the same strategy.
This was actually the original idea of non-fungible tokens, but because you need special legislation to tie an object to this digital receipt (there is nothing legally tying one thing to the other), they just skipped over it completely and said the NFT itself was the commodity, which is why they could only do it for digital art with the a web link. (we could, for example, see this more useful for a title to a car or house)
In fact, many NFTs don’t even contain any language about copyright or licensing, they don’t even attempt to pretend that the NFT holder owns the copyright. The owner of the NFT in these cases only owns the NFT, and not the copyright. Of course, you have to transfer the copyright separately from transferring the NFT, which makes this whole thing redundant for buying/selling on secondary markets, but they could have at least tried to pretend they could.
Apparently, smart contracts are not contracts at all… they are friendly suggestions. Unsurprisingly a contract needs a mechanism to enforce it, which makes decentralized contracts redundant at best (as you still need institutions outside of the blockchain to monitor and enforce the contracts), and or worse, completely useless if there is no legal way to enforce them.
The people that can actually make him look like an idiot refuse to interview or debate him (don’t want to “platform” him, among other concerns), so he looks like a genius to people that don’t know better.
People also seem to be concerned that he can bullshit his way through a debate by overwhelming people with fake facts. This is completely false, I’ve seen clips where he gets light pushback from relatively neutral speakers and he immediately folds or says something stupid.
People need to stop trying to sweep him under the rug, it only makes him look more authoritative and convincing to dumb people.
The main post would be shared but then in the comment section you can swipe left or right to scroll through the different instances (comment section). Most comment sections don’t have such unique requirements anyways, usually on Reddit I just assume “don’t be an asshole” and on the few occasions where that is not sufficient, I get deleted and the mod notifies me of the error, then I learn. Generally people won’t familiarize themselves with the community rules before posting.
It was the Bush administration that used their cultural differences as a justification for their hatred of the west. Of course, Bush could have just mentioned what Al Qaeda actually said, which was that they were a reaction to the US military, money, and support meddling in the Middle East. But then that might draw negative attention from legitimate concerns the Middle East has, which means the terrorists win according to their tortured logic, so instead “they hate us for our freedom”.
It’s more of a cliche, I don’t think anyone actually does it, but it shows up in those cropped images of tweets people post on reddit. Downvotes should show right next to the upvotes (at least, on desktop). Is a nice feature to show both, so if it’s like, negative 1, you can see, Oh it’s actually negative 10 and positive 9, that is like 50% dislike ratio. Feels a lot better knowing its a split crowd.
edit: A word
DELETE THIS POST 😂 Hey this isn’t twitter, but you can try 👏 adding 👏 claps 👏 between 👏 words 👏 if you think it will help.
Is a valid point to say they haven’t done anything honorable. Maybe my post is the equivalent of saying a murderer is honorable for telling the cops where he put the bodies? I like to give credit where credit is due, but I can see your point. Anyways, I feel bad that you have been downvoted to zero, I’ll give you an upvote.
I don’t want to defend spez, buuuuut, it was /r/the_donald, and it was kinda funny. It was not like a covert operation to change the dialog, it was obvious what happened when it happened, it was a troll move. Still inappropriate no doubt, but like, not the same as a disinformation campaign.
Is an interesting topic of discussion, unfortunately, they always seem to attach these things to a specific gender or race and it makes the whole thing sound childish. It’s like the concept of micro-aggressions, I like the idea of investigating the subtleties of human behaviour which can have covert but large effects, but they immediately attach it to race and racism.
It’s distributed to poor countries interested in free soap. They don’t reuse it within the hotel, and people that receive it know it’s recycled.
I question if this is actually an efficient way of donating soap, it’s quite an intensive process I wouldn’t be surprised if this was one of those feel-good things that actual costs more than just making new soap.
Yeah in my books, “Mansplaining” has never had proper meaning. It was just a way of blaming men for a particular behaviour, which is generally neutral to begin with.
Yeah I was tempted to add a caveat, it does technically auto executive, but because it needs to interact with the real world it will always run into the oracle problem. The only solution to the oracle problem is courts and tort law, which makes the blockchain contract redundant and unnecessarily expensive.