4 ms·

He didn't make NESticle or Genecyst or Callus for anyone but himself. That much should've been obvious by the UI for each emulator. Obviously, he wanted to writ

He didn't make NESticle or Genecyst or Callus for anyone but himself. That much should've been obvious by the UI for each emulator. Obviously, he wanted to write a 65(C)816 and SPC700 emulator in 1997, so he did. Considering how badly his privacy was violated during the late 90's, it's not even a little surprising that he never released it.

csdvrx 5y ago
> Considering how badly his privacy was violated during the late 90's, it's not even a little surprising that he never released it. It seems people never learn: just look at the effort to find who Satoshy or _why_ are. This is not respectful: they gave you something cool and asked to be left alone. Their work is theirs and they generously shared it with you. Why do they believe they are owed anything else? Why can't some people take "please stop" for a response? Why do they keep trying their best to alienate the very people who accomplished miracles way beyond their capabilities? It seems self destructive in any way I take it, and driven only by spite/jealousy/beggar-chooser spirit.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  Satoshi likely became filthy rich off of his invention, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not particularly sympathetic in that particular case.
  - csdvrx 5y ago
    > Satoshi likely became filthy rich off of his invention Should I do like you and exclude from the sympathy due to every human being those who are filthy poor if I don't like the poors? Or will you invoke some special exemption clause making it totally ok, like it's ok to punch up but not down? If I should not, maybe you should ask yourself if respect should exclude those who you dislike, because other people may dislike those you like... or even yourself.
    - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      Perhaps I phrased that poorly. It's not Satoshi's wealth that matters, but rather the source of his income—he became rich from his invention. I believe that should open him up to scrutiny, for the same reason that publishing investment advice should open you up to more scrutiny than publishing sports trivia. (I don't want to imply that Satoshi did anything untoward, because I don't think he did. However, it's a valid thing to want to investigate.)
      - misterprime 5y ago
        What's to investigate? Are you upset about potential tax fraud or something?
      - csdvrx 5y ago
        No, it's still not a valid reason to investigate someone who's made it very clear they do not want any scrutiny.
      - sine_reality 5y ago
        Still phrased pretty poorly in my opinion. You've sort of just reworded your original comment with some additional assertions that don't really make any sense. How is the individual(s) in question and their hard work that they've decided to unleash free of charge for anyone to use as they see fit even a little bit close to publishing investment advice? Your argument really comes off as being envious in some way or otherwise bitter.
    - burnoutgal 5y ago
  - svnpenn 5y ago
  - monkeywork 5y ago
    >Satoshi likely became filthy rich off of his invention, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not particularly sympathetic in that particular case. What should his financial state have to do with his want to retain privacy?

csdvrx 5y ago

> Considering how badly his privacy was violated during the late 90's, it's not even a little surprising that he never released it. It seems people never learn: just look at the effort to find who Satoshy or _why_ are. This is not respectful: they gave you something cool and asked to be left alone. Their work is theirs and they generously shared it with you. Why do they believe they are owed anything else? Why can't some people take "please stop" for a response? Why do they keep trying their best to alienate the very people who accomplished miracles way beyond their capabilities? It seems self destructive in any way I take it, and driven only by spite/jealousy/beggar-chooser spirit.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Satoshi likely became filthy rich off of his invention, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not particularly sympathetic in that particular case.
- csdvrx 5y ago
  > Satoshi likely became filthy rich off of his invention Should I do like you and exclude from the sympathy due to every human being those who are filthy poor if I don't like the poors? Or will you invoke some special exemption clause making it totally ok, like it's ok to punch up but not down? If I should not, maybe you should ask yourself if respect should exclude those who you dislike, because other people may dislike those you like... or even yourself.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    Perhaps I phrased that poorly. It's not Satoshi's wealth that matters, but rather the source of his income—he became rich from his invention. I believe that should open him up to scrutiny, for the same reason that publishing investment advice should open you up to more scrutiny than publishing sports trivia. (I don't want to imply that Satoshi did anything untoward, because I don't think he did. However, it's a valid thing to want to investigate.)
    - misterprime 5y ago
      What's to investigate? Are you upset about potential tax fraud or something?
    - csdvrx 5y ago
      No, it's still not a valid reason to investigate someone who's made it very clear they do not want any scrutiny.
    - sine_reality 5y ago
      Still phrased pretty poorly in my opinion. You've sort of just reworded your original comment with some additional assertions that don't really make any sense. How is the individual(s) in question and their hard work that they've decided to unleash free of charge for anyone to use as they see fit even a little bit close to publishing investment advice? Your argument really comes off as being envious in some way or otherwise bitter.
  - burnoutgal 5y ago
- svnpenn 5y ago
- monkeywork 5y ago
  >Satoshi likely became filthy rich off of his invention, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not particularly sympathetic in that particular case. What should his financial state have to do with his want to retain privacy?