gnaritas

62 ms·

511.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Whenever someone trots out the "basic laws of economics" it usually means they're trying really hard to ignore the complexities of reality and force the world to fit into a simplistic and wrong model in their head. Study afte
512.
by gnaritas 9y ago
What they didn't give a thought too, was that this wasn't a new product and you can't drastically change things like that when you have a large existing user base that rely on your product day in and day out. They functional
513.
by gnaritas 9y ago
You mean the one that is nearly universally hated? Those ribbons were a huge mistake and fuck you to users who knew how to use the software; it sucks.
514.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Yes, that's what it means to say "no monarchy". When positions are inherited that's a royal class.
515.
by gnaritas 9y ago
He's being down-voted because he's wrong; the US is a democracy, and a republic, and it has a constitution. Each of these things means something different but they are all true. > A republic doesn't just mean no monarch.
516.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Unfortunately, what the law is is generally determined by more than the text of the law, but the law plus previous precedence so it's never enough to just look at the text of the law.
517.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> So if you are driving down the street and say to your spouse, "Look at that house, it's gotta be worth a million bucks," you just committed a misdemeanor. No, but if you try and sell your opinion to make money that'
518.
by gnaritas 9y ago
When Textmate stalled between versions for years on end, Sublime came in with Textmate compatibility and simply scooped up a huge userbase who wanted something like Textmate on other platforms or were tired of waiting on Textmate to release
519.
by gnaritas 9y ago
They are not remotely similar; Benghazi was investigated multiple times by republicans and each they time found nothing. It was a fake scandal. Dems are merely trying to have an investigation of something that actually happened; we all sa
520.
by gnaritas 9y ago
That's not what a Ponzi scheme is. Specifically, Ponzi's require fraud, not just making money off new investors. All investments make money from new investors, it's the fraud that makes something a Ponzi where there's
521.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Simple really, most people don't actually know what a Ponzi scheme is nor what qualifies something as a Ponzi. Bitcoin is not remotely a Ponzi scheme so you can immediately tell those who claim it as as someone without the faintest clu
522.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Currency isn't SUPPOSED to be this volatile. Currency is NOT supposed to be an investment mechanism in and of itself. Agreed. > If I buy a loaf of bread for $1 now, I should be able to buy a loaf of bread for $1, 10 years from
523.
by gnaritas 9y ago
You're ignoring history; Clinton was unsuccessfully impeached, to assert that no one will bring impeachment charges unless they're sure they can win is simply objectively factually incorrect. We're not going to agree, not rem
524.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> I don't take the 25th seriously You said that; the 25th is part of the Constitution which implies quite directly that you don't take the Constitution seriously, I didn't interpret anything, words have meaning and you sai
525.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Probably and definitely are vastly different things; there's enough to attempt to bring charges, that's all that matters. And no, the 25th isn't fan fiction, it's a legitimate means to remove a president for incompe
526.
by gnaritas 9y ago
The point stands, there's enough that congress could impeach him at any time; if democrats were in control of congress it would have happened already as there's plenty to nail him with already. And you should take the 25th serious
527.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Legislation and impeachment are unrelated. Trump has already committed multiple impeachable offenses. He hasn't divested from his businesses, he lies constantly to things that are easily proved lies, he's appointing family member
528.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> The above is no reason to /disconnect/ from another human being. Sure it is; finding out another person is incapable of rational thought is a great reason to remove them from your life. You can't fix stupid and why woul
529.
by gnaritas 9y ago
It's not silly at all, it's simple; there's many ways to accomplish something and knowing a shorter more precise way to do something doesn't make the longer simple ways silly. The author didn't know about pgrep, so
530.
by gnaritas 9y ago
The whole world is going to do what's it's always done, remain a mess of disagreement and be dominated by the rich and serve the interests of the rich.
531.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> The message sent by making insider trading a crime could be heard that way : we're making money with your work that we don't really care about because we won't own stock from your company a year from now, we're dete
532.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> It would harm shorters, but since those ones are wishing harm to the company, it still seems fair. No, it isn't fair; this notion that shorters are somehow bad guys is bigotry. Shorters are just as important as those who go long
533.
by gnaritas 9y ago
All of your suggestions are more complicated than what you're suggesting replacing. People chain simple commands together because they're a language and it matches how they think of the problem. They're solving the problem
534.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> it's theft as well when people who keep buying and selling property keep profiting on people who actually keep companies running, who keep losing. I still don't understand what your complaint actually is? How are people who
535.
by gnaritas 9y ago
I think no, it's theft whether you do it once or many times; you are stealing money from investors who cannot make a decision fairly because they don't have the "private" information you do. Insider trading is theft.
536.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Replace the word value investor with lottery winner and perhaps the logical error you're making will become more obvious; one can name lottery winners all day long, it doesn't validate their strategy, it's simply survivorship
537.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> I would love someone to explain to me why using insider news is a crime. Because a market isn't fair if everyone doesn't have the same information available to them. Trading on insider information is literally stealing from
538.
by gnaritas 9y ago
No, it was worse; it was a bug in the community that proved people aren't really willing to abide by smart contracts when they feel they lost. That incident split the community in half with one side willing to tear down the entire thi
539.
by gnaritas 10y ago
I've written ORM's, I don't need them explained to me, and no all ORM's don't try and hide the database, that's just one pattern. Others like ActiveRecord simply try and make life simpler without complete hidin
540.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Most disagree, hence the popularity of ORM's.

More ›