nearting

I see from other comments that you have IRB approval for this study, but you really should include the IRB protocol identified and/or contact information of the PI here, especially if you've created a separate account just to post this recruitment material.

While it is possible to ask questions about the study here (as others have done), there's actually no way for me to know anything about the study approval except to email this thread link to NYU's IRB and have them figure out what protocol it corresponds to. And so far, the response has just been "Yes, we have approval, just trust us and send us your contact info."

Assuming that it's possible for non-researchers to use Qualtrics at NYU, there's really no way for me to determine if this is a real research study or someone whose account has been compromised and is running a data harvesting operation. I also don't even know what department this study is associated with (computer science, business, sociology, etc), which I suspect would influence people's interest in participating.

In any case, I'd recommend providing some more information up front, even if your IRB didn't require it.

Unless this is a very generous approximation, 2.0 is less than 2.1-2.4.

Even setting that aside, homes per capita is not indicative of supply and demand - if everyone in SF wants to live in a house alone, it really won't matter that SF has slightly more homes per capita.

It's inconsequential until it isn't. All of the other threats you mention are still threats, but if a government has a database of every resident's fingerprints and decided to use this to arrest every person who could be traced to a protest venue, a reasonable person would very quickly change their mind.

The way I see it, a government not having my fingerprints creates one more barrier to possible tyrannical actions like this and is thus a good thing.

Yes, but without an account, at least on mobile, you can't change any settings besides light/dark mode and language, which is pretty annoying.

You want to do right by people? Then put a big notice in the app, on your website, in the forums, etc., and refund subscriptions for anyone who's paid based on previously faulty information. If you're having folks to reach out to you over HN where you'll manually upgrade their accounts and shrugging your shoulders at being double-paid, then this is more of a PR stunt than doing right.

Sure, but I think the point is that you can build up some level of spice tolerance over time. Doesn't really make sense to judge someone's spice tolerance based on before they built it up.

And it's also mentioned in the third paragraph:

> They were originally shot in black and white, then hand-coloured by artists — a technique common at the time.

> Here's the dangerous way I put it that I only tell senior people: understand why rules were made and make sure the people who made them would be happy.

If you aren't absolutely sure those senior people know what they're doing, the this is a great way to end up with originalism.

Ranked pairs does not have a quadratic ballot length, since all of the preference information can be computed from a single ranking of the candidates.

This doesn't address the question in any way except to note that you also use Merkle Trees. Do you reply to any comment mentioning TypeScript with a link to your Show HN post as well?

And your response is code for "I'm unfamiliar with the concept of oligopolies, and believe that every consumption choice should be based on logic alone." Come on.

That assumes that there's no other way to get your password than by accessing the contents of your password manager. The service itself could have its passwords/hashes leaked, and people unfortunately do reuse passwords across services even with a password manager, so it's very plausible for someone to get your password but not the answers to your questions.

Even in a web of trust, you're delegating trust to someone that you treat as an authority. Especially in practice, where the long-term outcomes of webs of trust tend to be either (1) the scale is nowhere near sufficient due to the effort involved in verification, or (2) you end up de facto trusting some authorities who can provide that scale, at the cost of the identity verification being less meaningful. Sure, it might be easier to cut off or reroute trust if things go south, I don't see us reaching a critical mass for a significant scale any time soon.