Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | glitchc's commentslogin

Bitcoin behaves exactly like a fiat currency would if driven completely by market forces. It's a good thought experiment in what the exchange rate would look like if the currency value is purely derived from demand and supply.

I've never understood why you'd need a currency specifically for Italian cars.


No, it behaves like a speculative asset. The price goes up as long as the number of people who believe it will go up increases, causing more people to buy it. Once the supply of greater fools is exhausted, there is no reason for anybody to hold it because it's price isn't going up, so they sell to find something else that goes up. This causes more people to sell so they don't lose more until the price falls to the non-speculative utility of the asset, which is 0.

Unfortunate but true. Just as true as human drivers doing the same. No technical system guarantees a failure rate of zero.

If you let ideology trump facts, why are you surprised when the "other side" does the same? Those who believe in facts watch both in horror from the sidelines.

He's being sarcastic (hopefully).

Yellow journalism is yellow, no matter which side it's on.

What does that mean?

Not sure I follow either. What's the issue with Turley?

There's an increasing number of names Open Ai will refuse to answer when asked about because of lawsuits. Sometimes because chat gpt mixed up people with similar names and hallucinated murders about them

Too woke probably. White House is censoring American AI models: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/prev...

You missed the "strategic use of metamaterials to emanate a negative refractive index"

Unfortunately some inbound servers will block emails if the originating server does not match the From: address.

If you control the domain, you can use SPF to designate Google as an authorized sender for your domain.

This is simply a case of appeal to authority. No reviewer or editor would reject a paper from either HBS or LBS, let alone a joint paper between the two. Doing so would be akin to career suicide.

And therein lies the uncomfortable truth: Collaborative opportunities take priority over veracity in publications every time.


That's why double-blind review shohld be the norm. It's wild to me that single-blind is still the norm in kost disciplines.

Get off your high horse. This person bled for their country and once their service ended, was discarded without a second thought. They are entitled to feel the way they feel and have earned the privilege to voice their outrage. It is our duty to listen.

Their service is commendable and I'll even go so far to say that they were betrayed. But I still don't agree. We all have a duty. Being betrayed gives you every right to be angry, but it is what you do with that anger that matters. Do you use it as an excuse to be self centered or do you recognize that if you're betrayed so have others. That those that betrayed you can only do so because you do not band together. That you do not use your anger to band together and tell them to fuck off. To make them fuck off.

I'm personally very anti war. But I also am very dissatisfied with how we treat our veterans. To send them to, as Hawkeye says: "worse than hell", and then just abandon them?! That's a high moral sin. Outright unconscionable. But recognize they can only get away with this because we let them. I'm not okay with it, are you?

It isn't our duty to listen and do nothing. It is our duty to get mad and do something. Which is exactly what Droopy said


> Being betrayed gives you every right to be angry, but it is what you do with that anger that matters.

I am not angry. What I was ultimately describing was referred to as a 'social contract'. Like a regular contract, once it is not fulfilled, you cannot rely upon it ever again.

To illustrate this concept better I will explain it by example:

If you hire someone to fix your roof, you pay them, and they don't fix it; then a few months later you re-hired them again to fix your roof, and again they take your money and refuse to fix it.

Who is ultimately responsible for you losing money the second time around?

I would argue, (and so would their lawyers if you sued them), that you had a legal duty to "mitigate losses", and as you didn't learn the first time, you are responsible for throwing good money over bad, not them. You knew they didn't honour their contracts, so it was on you that you re-engaged with them.

That is not anger, that is common sense, and a basic common law legal concept.


That analogy doesn't fit the situation of a social contract not being fulfilled, and your overall point is extremely antisocial.

You appear to be saying if one person or group fails to uphold their obligation to you at any time, you are thereafter released from your obligation to the rest of humanity.


Whats the high horse? Was there anything illogical or even exaggerated in what I've written?

It does get better with physio and exercise. Took me twenty years to recover full (100%) pain-free mobility. It still occasionally finds itself in an uncomfortable spot that can be self-freed, but it can now hold muscle tone across the fascia.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: