mypastself

Sounds like great idea, but can’t seem to find some key info: which “public ledger” is used here? A blockchain? If so, there would need to be a massive fee overhead. If not, then how are we not relying on trust?

Also, is there some kind of ownership structure based on investment?

That’s exactly it. I view it almost like Newtonian physics. Sure, it’s inaccurate at some level, but until we find a superior model, it’s safer to make your investment decisions based on it.

Same here, with the caveat that Google has managed to successfully bully me into paying for Premium some time ago. Not sure if any Premium users are affected.

Are you disagreeing with the “chilling effect” section of the article, or are you implying the effect could not have been real due to the current length of the article?

If a major government agency repeatedly requests you follow certain guidelines and gets frustrated when you don’t, it might be reasonable to feel pressured or threatened, even if they’re your own guidelines. I know I’d be, even by what was revealed in the Twitter files.

I assume he’s familiar with the transparency standards of his own site. And he still calls whatever happened pressure. So it’s entirely possible it wasn’t as innocuous as you suggest.

Did Zuckerberg himself support conspiracy theories? Or does he regret succumbing to government requests for censoring that type of content? Sounds to me like he wants to allow certain kinds of speech on his platform, regardless of whether or not he personally agrees with them.

Can’t find the claim about the statement not being political anywhere in the linked article. But there’s this:

> Meta’s CEO aired his grievances in a letter Monday to the House Judiciary Committee in response to its investigation into content moderation on online platforms

Sounds like he wasn’t the initiator of the discussion, but I may be misreading the paragraph.

Also, it will likely only improve. I expect that none of us here will be able to get a 10/10 on similar tests a decade from now. Or much sooner.

I wonder if companies are now more likely to keep those postings open despite not actually hiring. I’m personally (and of course anecdotally) aware of a number of such cases.

> “deceives” users into believing such accounts are safe when “there is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing” the check mark system

In what way do they deceive and abuse? The article doesn’t say.

> a number of high-profile public figures distanced themselves from verification on X

> Hashtags such as #BlockTheBlueChecks trended on X in the backlash, while several celebrities decided to leave the platform

If the public perception has indeed turned against the blue checks, surely there’s no longer a reputation to uphold. What’s X’s legal obligation here?

The article is from 2019, so its claims about Ethereum are outdated. But even so:

> We start by collecting data on emission rates… for four pollutants commonly created by burning fossil fuels to produce energy

Wait, why focus on fossil fuels alone?

And why focus on cryptocurrency specifically? Did they produce a similar study for e.g. entertainment?

Also, did I miss the part where the impact of traditional mining is estimated and compared? I can’t find anything about the headline’s claim in the body of the article.

I hope he flushed the DNS afterwards.

> It's similar to SSH works, but with SSH you'd need your Pi exposed to the Internet.

How does Pi Connect’s access differ from regular port forwarding? Isn’t the device still exposed to the Internet?

The article mentions Cloudflare tunnels near the end. Does this work on a similar principle as Argo? (I haven’t watched the video yet.)