daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

As long as 51% of nodes can verify a transaction, it will be added to the ledger. This means that as long as someone doesn’t own 51% of the network, they can’t just inject whatever transactions they want (i.e., fraudulent activity). In practice, this makes these networks very resilient to fraud.

Could like, 51% of the owners just coordinate to kind of, do a fraud? I mean it sounds like an inherently democratic system, but from what I've understood of, say, miners, right (dunno how this works for proof of stake, but I imagine it has similar problems), those rigs are gonna be bought by people who disproportionately have higher earnings and can afford more GPUs in finland or wherever, and then that's going to just kinda recreate the same power dynamic that we see in the real world already. Which ends up in the same kind of speculative market garbage we have with stock ownership in companies already.

I also don't really understand how a ticketing system would really work on the blockchain. I probably don't know enough about cryptography to know how it might work, but I got the sense that nfts weren't even overpriced jpegs, they were overpriced links with pseudo-legal contracts, that were still prone to link rot, and didn't really indicate any IP ownership. If you had a code on the ticket instead that could only be verified as real, rather than fake, by a ticketing person, instead of like, a link, that would probably be the use case, right? am I getting that correct, is that something cryptography can do? probably, right?

Also, can someone just like, steal your ticket still? Or like impersonate you as the ticket guy, or what? Like from the others have told me and also just from what I know already, you can't really change the chain unless, like you said, you have 51% of the owners, so how would you be able to like, put something in the chain that identifies the owner as being the owner? Wouldn't it be more secure to have just like, a verifiable code or something, that you can delete, that isn't public, between the artist and the buyer? Then you could ensure anonymity between the buyer and the venue and stuff, you could work in establishing characteristics like oh here's my driver's license, here's my government ID, without putting that stuff on the blockchain, which seems like a bad idea.

Provided you're willing to learn enough to verify and test it yourself, I suppose. That being foisted onto the consumer is kind of problematic, but it's not really the fault of the dark web provider I would say as much as the corrupt medical industry driving people to do that in the first place. In any case I still think it's kind of a good band-aid that's risen up to fill the gap, even if the situation as a whole is shitty.

I'm stupid, can you give me a like, more clear practical example of a good use of blockchain? Cause I get the sense that a good amount of this conflict, going off that flowchart, is going to be due to the evaluation of these situations as like, not needing to arise in the first place, or maybe like, a philosophical objection to the necessity of the technology, maybe. But I think a clearer example could help with this.

I've read through this whole thread, and I still haven't really come to any solid conclusions on it. I'm skeptical of crypto as a kind of idiotic speculative market, but that's also every market ever. But then, the blockchain is apparently different from crypto, even though they're both hype-laden marketing terms that have been completely fucked up. I think doing [redacted] with crypto is still potentially cool, though I think it still has limited anonymity, from what I've heard, and the speculative market also fucks it up.

Is "the blockchain" just like some nerd shit that's for internal hospital ledgers, and beyond that it's all kind of moot garbage, or what? Someone spoonfeed me.

That's kind of epic, though, I'm pretty sure HRT is cheaper on the black market instead of going through your medical provider, and I need steroids in bulk so I can hulk out and become jacked.

Yeah, but I'm conscious of it. I've kind of thrown out conceptions of unbiased news as being something that even exists in the first place anyways, so I'd rather at least have something that sort of, is given from a perspective I understand, and which conforms to whatever my standards for information are, rather than just having like, unbiased reporting on events.

The decision of what events to cover isn't necessarily going to be unbiased, the decision of what language to use when covering those events isn't necessarily unbiased, the decision of which sources the "unbiased" news trusts for their reporting isn't necessarily unbiased. I would kind of rather just have a news source that I can sort of, trust to do it's job, and present me with information that I can understand, and know what to do with, rather than a news source where I have to do my own journalism to find out whether or not their story really means anything as a whole.

If you understand and can more thoroughly comprehend the bias of the news you're given, it's easier to kind of push it through the framework and turn it into easy to consume gelatinous news paste.

Holy fuck, really? I didn't keep up with it at all, but that seems like a pretty significant indictment of the department and the officers there, way beyond even just the extremely laggardly response time and very poor tactical decision making. That's also what I would say is pretty definitive evidence, caliber mismatch isn't something you can really handwave away. Do you got any sources on deck for this?

Stupidly, anything that requires too much of a time commitment, which has led me easily to death by a million cuts. I'm conscious of my zoomer mentality in this respect, but it's much easier to generally piss away all your time on like, 50 tiktoks, that all last 5 seconds, compared to a TV show or a movie or whatever. The secondary effect, understated, I think, of this, and I think this is the kind of, horrible advantage of those platforms, is that you will inevitably spend more time trying to find stuff to look at that interests you, rather than actually watching content, so I think they can skate by a little more with a little less content. More efficient for them, less efficient for you.

I find myself doing the same thing with 10 minute youtube videos, but I also will end up watching multiple hour long video essays on random garbage, so I don't really know what that's about. Maybe just easier to convince myself that it's a "productive" activity, to learn about some random nonsense, as compared to engaging in some sort of probably wholly escapist form of media, that might in reality lend itself towards an easier foothold for conversations with other people? I dunno, maybe the problem is just kind of trying to look at media in terms of its pure utility value, rather than looking at media through some other lens.

Certainly, I think the biggest contributing factor is just environment. I'm on my computer and phone a lot more than on my e-reader or my TV, so I naturally engage with the easier to access forms of media found on those platforms. Regression to the lowest condom domino gator, or whatever.

Also, I feel like I've seen enough people answer "anime" that the anime... subs? boards? communities? communities sounds a little too long. Anyways, it should be more popular, but I really haven't seen any engagement on any of them, the anime holes.

I've watched "some more news" a couple of times, I found them pretty alright. They're pretty clearly biased, they're just biased in a direction that I tend to like more than others. Still kind of, full of stupid skits though, and for the comedy, ymmv, certainly, it doesn't really land for me at all. Quality of the information is kind of. Iffy, it would seem like, but I haven't looked into it that hard.

don't knock the choccy milk protein shake powder, that stuff can be pretty good sometimes. it's mostly just that you gotta shell out a buttload for it most of the time, for the stuff that actually tastes good.

Imagine people in the US electing Trump, then 10 years later writing the same thing.

I mean, I would kinda get that, no? It's not as though most people in the US voted for trump last time. Not even counting the popular vote thing, right, which is still pretty important, but like, people who didn't vote for whatever reason, even. Maybe that's because they're not exercising their right to democracy or what have you, and so it's still their fault, idk. I guess you could include the clause of prisoners and former convicts, who aren't allowed to vote. I guess my broader point is that, seeing as how kind of, horrendously stupid and undemocratic the elections are here in america, especially at the federal level, I would not really expect russia, and the russians to be any better off. I'd actually probably expect them to be much, much worse off, so I don't think I'd feel comfortable blaming them for their political system.

I also don't understand why it's kind of a controversial stance to kind of, empathize with people that are conscripted into a war. I don't think, really, over ukranians, right, but empathizing with them nonetheless, I don't see why that's controversial. It would be like saying that all americans were at fault for vietnam, which is kind of obviously an extremely simplified and even somewhat useless perspective to have, on the historical factors that were leading up to that war. The election processes that went into it, the economic factors, the henry kissinger shit, the public pushback that helped to end it. Certainly I wouldn't blame the anti-war protestors or the people who voted against the powers that be for the war, they were clearly fighting against it. I don't hear a lot about any organized grassroots resistance against the ukranian war in russia, I think probably more as a nature of my westernized news consumption, I'd assume, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the case that there was some level of pushback against this war domestically, especially given the history of cross-pollination and cultural exchange between the two regions.

I'm also not sure that like, attributing war crimes and atrocities to a whole population or to the whole of conscripted soldiers is really a great thing to do, that strikes me as kind of xenophobic. I've seen that same sort of propaganda spouted about almost every enemy america has faced in the middle east, both true and untrue. Unless their military doctrine or military culture has kind of a demonstrated slant towards those kinds of things, then I feel pretty questionable about it. Those sorts of controversies don't serve much to sort of, shed actual light on the core problems there, which is that there's a war happening in the first place. I'm also kind of skeptical that they would serve to galvanize anti-war support, thus, serving to end the war, but I'd be more willing to be convinced of that.

In any case I'm not going to blame the russian people for not having a mass revolution or well organized resistance movement right this moment, and for not overthrowing their government, just as I wouldn't don't blame americans for the same thing. I don't think that's a particularly unreasonable stance to have, I think it's realistic.

have you tried chocolate milk flavored protein shake? or does that not quite hit the same, for you?

Maybe it's because I've only ever bought stuff on FB marketplace instead of selling most of my stuff there, but I've never really had much of a problem with it. Everyone's super accommodating, and super nice every time. Especially when their stuff is free, I've gotten like 3-4 CRT monitors from there, a sick huge bean bag with the memory foam, an old IKEA tv stand from like the 90's or early 2000's. I dunno. If you're really that nervous, just meet up in a public location, and make sure you're packing heat, it's not too bad.

Just get a CRT with speakers instead, and then that's basically the same thing, with the bonus that it wiggles and your eardrums split open when you play anything at a volume higher than 10

It would still work in a heavily regulated market, yeah, but the thing with georgism is that it tends to be advertised as a kind of one-size-fits-all solution to the housing market, as a highly sought after "single tax" or "perfect tax". If you look at the historical ties of georgism which I also kind of struggle to remember, I think I remember that being kind of, the thing about it, was that it was aligned with like, the dominant labor parties, but was kind of seen as too moderate and singularly committed of a position.

So, the tax itself is cool, and agreeable, but the georgists as a kind of, party, and georgism as a philosophy built around a singular tax, I'm still not sure about. I'm skeptical of silver-bullet solutions, which is what georgism is often made out to be. It also gives me bad vibes because anytime I hear someone talking so highly about some obscure 19th or 20th century political philosophy, it gives me the same alarm bells as people who want to be rhodesian infantrymen, or people who want to be dengists, or shit like that. I dunno. Henry george was an interesting and prescient dude but he was also in many ways a product of his time, I think. Here's marx talking about him in a letter I haven't read, might interest you I guess.

I would think that it would be on the easier side to survive an attack from this thing, maybe, but harder to beat it in a fight, as any present danger that you pose to it can kind of just be circumvented by it choosing to fly away and then hit you when you're unawares. So I think hunting strategy would probably play a pretty big factor in this as well.

It depends on how this thing attacks prey. If it's a bird of prey, I'd kind of assume that it would dive prey and scoop it up, rather than landing and then attacking it's prey, and it's much harder to dodge a large bird than it is to kind of, fence away chicken-like pecking, as you've kind of described here. Much like how pelicans dive bomb surface fish.

I think it's also probably more likely that this thing would snap at you compared to pecking, which is probably going to be harder to dodge, depending on how much it opens its mouth, and what angles it tries to hit you at. Vertical snapping is pretty ineffective at hitting vertical targets like humans. I'd imagine it might be pretty capable of flesh wounds, though.

I agree that you can probably survive being stepped on by this thing, but some of the artists' renderings have claws, and in combination with the pressure and even just the size and probable strength of this animal, I'd imagine it could hit you with a pretty large gash, which might kill you without medical attention. Let's also consider that, even though you can experience a car rolling over you, and cars routinely weight more and spread their force over a similar surface area, a better analogue, along those lines, might be if we dropped a car on you, tire-first. If this thing decides to step on you, it's not putting down just 250 kg, it's putting down 250kg, plus momentum, plus muscular force.

So, overall, I'm not quite as optimistic of your chances as you seem to be.

it's been a while since I've heard about it, but iirc LVT generally evaluates and decides on taxes based on proximity to other developments, so undeveloped land or poor density land that is close to more developed housing, is taxed more heavily, while land out in the boonies isn't taxed very heavily. it's supposed to incentivize development in more desirable places to live, and naturally eliminate situations in which higher value plots end up getting bought up by rich people for their whims.

at the same time, it's still a solution that's ultimately relying on the free market to maximize their profit margins, and that being good for society, it's just decreasing the relative profit margins for each plot of land through higher taxes. it still retains harmful forms of development, it just, potentially, eliminates them more naturally, compared to explicit bans.

Along with what everyone else is saying, I think they could probably still try to make an attempt at taking like, a false moral position, along the lines of an accelerationism-style "oh, well, trump seeking to escalate the war would end it more quickly, thus, saving more lives in the long run" kind of thing. Obviously based on kind of false pretenses, but then, I think a lot of their political positions kind of assume war and resource extraction as an inevitability, and power as an ultimate moral good, on a deeper level, and the fascism and propaganda mind games they play are just kind of a stupid extension of that.

Always wondered why those aluminum bottles I see sometimes with screw on tops are so rare, I feel like they should be used way more. Recyclability of an aluminum can, convenience and form factor of a bottle.

This is kind of the same situation I'm in, but I'm not quite as tech savvy and I'm more resistant to learning linux even though I'll still probably want to migrate over at some point.

What I don't really understand is, or, what I understand, but I suppose I find mildly amusing, or confusing, is how many criticisms I've seen of windows that kind of just don't apply to LTSC as much, if at all? It's kind of to the point where I wonder why anyone would really use any other version.