frotty

comparing # to # the blue seems far more vibrant and opaque to the others.

compare all of the 5s next to each other and the blue is electric where the other colors look like a tint is applied.

obviously YMMV based on monitor gamma and color profile, but was the intention that each # have a similar tint to the pure color? Because this appears to essentially be a similar system to RGB/CMYK in different notation, over a Munsell Color System implementation that creates equivalence in color perception based on intensity scaling.

I lost my cash app account to "gambling or against TOS" because whatever blockchain analysis they did found that it touched something they didn't like.

Was fully verified, personal info handed away to the max.

No inquiry, no interaction. Just "nah, you're done."

The irony here is that them holding the crypto is 100% a-ok (and selling at a profit etc). Which goes back to discussions of coin taint.

They discovered that the coin they had was "bad" but that didn't stop them from dealing with it. And so the gov will continue to hammer + fine.

The "compliance program insufficiencies" is a dog + pony show. All they can do is take everyone's info (they do), and keep a list of known addresses and see how many naughty addresses whatever crypto was affiliated with / how close / etc and then shut it down.

They've put up a bit of a resistance, because while they shut accounts down, they still let the cash leave. It's just a bit disingenuous to have a "violatable policy" that isn't provably illegal in any way.

All offramps are the same, and scrutinized the same way. Some just have their hand tighter in the glove

SARs are nothing new, and the limitations and what triggers them keep changing.

One of these eMoney services just recently lowered the threshold for them feeling compelled to bother you for proof/more info to a couple hundred dollars.

right - it's about using latency to the requester.

...which is what fails via 100 methods. I personally can't believe this is omitting addressing the things that would basically ruin this.

well yeah, that's against the point of "anonymity" ... you are feeding the app all the data it needs to fence you in.

By this logic every government gives a uniquely IDable device to its citizenry for engaging polls.

Besides ... if it was "important enough" to break, getting around geofencing etc. is a trivial/already solved part of this.

I'd love to see your documentation on where it was ever claimed that 4chan was an experiment in anonymity creating a usable filter for quality?

Completely anonymous online polls are impossible, I'm thinking the goal is to have effectively non-publicly identifiable polling with the ability to disallow double voting. Seems absolutely trivial if Every Relevant Citizen was set up with their own API / digi-thumbprint.

This feels grossly incomplete, and not a barrier to an attack of even remedial sophistication. ie, low latency from any given machine doesn't have any relationship to external controlling connections to the machine.

I also don't see anything addressing the "1 external IP for n number of people" being addressed.

It's also a bit bizarre to have multiple references to "the speed of light" when this wouldn't work for someone remote desktopping in

It's all a fine balancing act, sure, but ...

"This isn't a popularity contest... so anyway, here's how voting works" is a bit silly, and right there on the front page is "yesterday's winners" which is more than a bit disingenuous.

What if I vote for nothing because all of the products are bad? Why do I care about a user leaderboard for with streaks and their voting history? No noise?

People are so concerned with having an actual downvote button but not-so-concerned with how gameable upvote only systems are.

One of my favorite newsletters just gives links with one-line description. Done. What if this site just listed 10 products a day. No voting, no "judgment" by anyone except the person curating the links.

What if 100 products come out in a week. How do you choose?

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Just another channel to saturate

100% of the people around me at work care.

I wish they didn't, because they're bad at their job and "them caring" puts them as a peer for experts and people who both care AND are competent/experienced via design by committee and inclusion. Their incompetency is explained away as "unique point of view."

So perhaps the entire piece is an exercise in overgeneralization, where you assume that everyone has a baseline amount of competency. That curb could have been designed by a very caring intern, who is awful at what they do. They were managed by someone who had 100 other deadlines that are more important. They care about that curb, but they care about 100 other things with more priority.

We're in the era of Good Enough.

I find it's an impossible thought experiment to judge doing 100 things Good Enough is better/worse than doing 1 thing perfectly and ignoring 99 other things. Add a token / currency to the mix, costs + returns on investment. And now you have something substantial to judge.

There is a massive difference between actively not caring and passively omitting attention.

Peppered into the diatribe is direct, aggressive, not caring. But that doesn't validate the general stance.

Make a consultancy called Caring Company that makes companies/products/projects more efficient at same or less cost.

My institution has hired multiple consultancies to fix structures and form new ones... the entropy of pay grade and how to prioritize thousands of tasks in parallel doesn't "get solved" because someone finds that some employee is just bad at what they do. And what do you do when you find you can only hire those employees because you don't pay enough for better, because your products' incomes don't match the skill level required?

I would assert that it's fairly well established that all of those problems are modified (if not entirely solved) by changing resource allocation, and those with more resources modify the systems more, to their liking.

Asking "problem solvers" (effectively a non-category since every living human solves a variety of scale and scope of problems) why they're not "solving the big or 'real' problems" is disingenuous: there are a variety of reasons why. greed, selfishness, etc. are easy to point out as the evil motivators but quality of information, access, and ability to allocate impactful resources are also in play.