kauffj

Joined 12 years ago

Karma
1,742
Submissions
204
Member since
Aug 25
I run lbry.com. Previously, I founded usetopscore.com. I pretend to blog at kauffj.com [edit: I don't even pretend anymore].

I live in NH as a member of the http://freestateproject.org/

[ my public key: https://keybase.io/kauffj; my proof: https://keybase.io/kauffj/sigs/HnABU5n3dQfJWWFm2HiryKMuXlnV4AC2AL39YsAg8Qo ]

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 5 years ago
Gwern's Algernon Argument is relevant here: https://www.gwern.net/Drug-heuristics

Logically, it's likely there must be trade-offs for higher IQs or it would have been selected for more strongly.

Comment · 5 years ago
This problem could be fixed with less regulation, not more. Without intellectual property there would be far more diversity and choice.
Comment · 5 years ago
No, other people are unilaterally making up rules and applying them to me. I would happily live in a society without IP, but am not permitted to do so. Those who support IP demand it globally, at the barrel of a gun.
Comment · 6 years ago
There is no other method to allow local control over publishing identity combined with a coherent view of a decentralized network.
Comment · 6 years ago
Many people didn't want to send email in the 1990s either.

A blockchain is the only technology that allows a simultaneously decentralized and coherent view of what exists on a network along with local control over identity.

I think blockchain sucks in many ways and is a big hassle. We try to hide it as much as possible. It's still the right solution to this problem.

Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
A blockchain retains a complete, coherent, censorship-resistant listing of what's available on a network in a way that local or federated key-pairs can not.

There is no search all of PeerTube. There is search all of LBRY.

Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
> There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs

This is trivially false, as people accept money for health risk every day (see: working in medicine, transportation, mining, leaving your house, etc.)

Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
However you feel about this, Twitter did it in pretty much the worst way possible.

1. They had someone with a clear history of strong anti-Trump and anti-Republican sentiment take the action (https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/126545757821512499...)

2. Twitter chose a prediction rather than a factual statement to fact check ("Mail-In Ballots will be..."). Why not start with a truly factually wrong statement about the past?

3. They picked something that is actually debatable! A bipartisan committee concluded it carried some risks in 2005: https://www.wsj.com/articles/heed-jimmy-carter-on-the-danger...

The notion that a company can ever be trusted to "fact check" (aka determine objective truth) is just completely laughable. The closest we can come is labeling agent beliefs about truth ("X says Y is false").

Doing nothing would be better than doing this. Even better would be building solutions that allow community-based (and ideally personalized) derivations of consensus (this is what we're doing at LBRY).

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton