3 ms·
Dude- I made two comments, the point of which, was that using the word "prejudice" against user "coldpie" was hyperbolic and unfair. How you got from those two
by listenallyall 3y ago
Dude- I made two comments, the point of which, was that using the word "prejudice" against user "coldpie" was hyperbolic and unfair. How you got from those two comments, neither of which mentioned anything about crypto or blockchain, to all of this, is completely uncomprehensible to me, and I'm guessing most anyone else who reads this far.
- benreesman 3y agoThe trivial prejudice of the other commenter’s initial reply, which they seem to have elected to not double down on is vastly less concerning than your comfort with both embracing a 1-bit generalization and in the same breath maligning the tireless efforts of the kind of engineers that with stupendously overwhelming likelihood make your entire lifestyle possible, and then doubling down on it twice. It takes a lot to get me to follow someone this far down a reply chain these days, but this is pretty fucking epic.
- benreesman 3y agoI think it’s the obligation of the more tenured members of the community to give the less tenured folks some outs when things go a bit sideways. So I’m going to propose two. The strictly utilitarian game-theory play with zero risk is to concede nothing, walk away, and sink the sunk cost. The ethical high road answer is to concede that you were out of line and watch all be forgotten thereby, which has a utilitarian premium as well: you’d make a friend. The stupid answer is to raise 2,6 off suit repeatedly with someone representing suited royalty who has clearly committed to shoving the flop on principle. You do you, but I see two good calls and one bad call.