czbond

36 ms·

511.
by czbond 5y ago
Decentralized, anonymized identity is one application. It sounds amazing in theory - and can work for the general use cases of sharing information with corporations. But, I believe it won't really be anonymized, as "data exhaust&q
512.
by czbond 5y ago
Agree, and once quantum comps are more readily available - re-analyzing the entire chain and profiling individuals will be so easy, an AWS quant rental will be able to decrypt and do it.
513.
by czbond 5y ago
Yes - they usually use an URL that points to some IPFS that is behind a domain name they'll let lapse, and someone can cyber jack the domain.
514.
by czbond 5y ago
I still believe that's why the U.S. invaded anyway. We didn't care about overtaking a country for some silly resistance leader. You do it for big money to bilk - like Iraq and oil.
515.
by czbond 5y ago
I believe at a higher level, a universe level, rather than a human level - human natural state must be an equilibrium of "energy" & detriment. (energy is a meta concept crossing domains here, stay with me). Humans consume ener
516.
by czbond 5y ago
Their problem, not yours. Their argument won't hold up in court.
517.
by czbond 5y ago
I operate similarly to thread OP, and manage multiple : work, personal, social, etc projects ongoing. I'm naturally high energy..... I can't sit down for long.
518.
by czbond 5y ago
I know you're being satirical - but to anyone doing something similar, BTC is auditable forever (hence the 'chain') and anonymity is broken when transactions go to / from a financial account. Fuzzy memory, but I recall
519.
by czbond 5y ago
I just meant to create it with internal resources and release it - meaning Ruby is enough of Stripe's culture to allow it to happen. Kudos!
520.
by czbond 5y ago
Thank you - Great looking release! Other Ruby extensions seemed like afterthoughts or incomplete efforts. Does Stripe use Ruby enough internally to "bootstrap" this from the ground up?
521.
by czbond 5y ago
Whether it is human nature, or learned behavior, the typical human is unable to fill their time with productive use over a longer period of time unless purpose is imposed on them. Hence "work". The concept in a more general term i
522.
by czbond 5y ago
I agree in theory, but disagree in practice. Covid lockdowns taught me the general public is superb at wasting time and being inefficient. Their mind turned to Netflixing all day, making Tiktok dance numbers, etc. I am bullish on machines &
523.
by czbond 5y ago
We'd better figure out Apophis in the next 100 years...
524.
by czbond 5y ago
A lot of the responses which suggest everyone needs "endless schedule free time as a right" miss this point - either they, or someone else, is supporting their need to eat, sleep, and provide.
525.
by czbond 5y ago
Alright - get rid of wage labor and be an "entrepreneur". You'll work harder than you ever have, for much less than you've ever made, for your new found freedom.
526.
by czbond 5y ago
I do think there is a space in between. Yes, connecting with most people is hard because many can be feelers, highly emotional, dramatic, irrational..... we're in different universes. I look at them as though they are as alien as they
527.
by czbond 5y ago
As an engineer (product creator) - it behooves one to continually be involved in experiencing how the product is used. Not just how we believe it, or think it. Use cases, flows, and product paths seem logical on a whiteboard. However, the r
528.
by czbond 5y ago
Thank you - that was very helpful
529.
by czbond 5y ago
I can relate to your frustrations; what does the term "dying to self" mean to you? (I'm trying to understand the phrase, not questioning it)
530.
by czbond 5y ago
Thank you and the team for creating this - very cool.
531.
by czbond 5y ago
slacker
532.
by czbond 5y ago
No. Personally, I believe a creator would be busy with the countless other universes and couldn't care mostly about people's day to day. What I mainly suggested was the ROI of believing in a creator vs not was a high ROI, low effo
533.
by czbond 5y ago
>"you have to spread your religion over others". That just seems like growth hacking (to put it in startup parlance). I find it illogical that a creator would see someone with a good heart, pure intentions, and kick them off to
534.
by czbond 5y ago
One will not know, but the downside risk is greater if you must at least believe.
535.
by czbond 5y ago
I would bet that humans, especially in the early times that interpreted all of the now current religious texts - were poorly educated, biased, and also human. So ... there were "additions/mis-translations/an individuals belie
536.
by czbond 5y ago
Of course it does. Every country in the world has caused grievances on itself, it's people, and others in the name of a religion. Never particular to one region, religion, or belief. Most teach some sort of humbleness, kindness, etc.
537.
by czbond 5y ago
Yes it is. But taking the highest probabilistic chance, with the highest ROI, and lowest downside seems the best right? It is better than arguing what ifs, and nuances all day?
538.
by czbond 5y ago
All of the encumbrances you listed are made by humans. You can sit in the forest with the religious book of your choice and get you all you need... and never have to talk to a soul, or participate, or give money. You listed human blockades
539.
by czbond 5y ago
I think Pascal's wager didn't take the final logical step. A G0d knows that any worship on Earth is meant for them. It's like a symlink
540.
by czbond 5y ago
Any enlightened G0d would know that humans minds are limited, and thus the worship of any G*d is actually meant for them. Thus no problem. [Italics are being inserted by HN]

More ›