hoofish

8 ms·

31.
Conversational Game Theory(aikiwiki.com)
121 points by hoofish 2y ago|59 comments
32.
by hoofish 5y ago
all companies die, that is the point. the problem is they resist their eventual death
33.
Adhocracy: The DAO of Life and Death(bigmotherdao.com)
2 points by hoofish 5y ago|3 comments
34.
by hoofish 5y ago
Facebook is probably one of the worst things in the world for a healthy society, yet it will not die a timely death, and it will not change its revenue model because it would mean death. Google has created an intractable problem with global
35.
ProRussia Twitter trolls, tweets, trails, and Trump before 2015(wikipediawehaveaproblem.com)
1 points by hoofish 8y ago|0 comments
36.
Come play Wikipedia's BLP-pallooza(wikipediawehaveaproblem.com)
2 points by hoofish 9y ago|0 comments
37.
by hoofish 9y ago
filecoin is not BTC. BTC does have an inherent value, but only within the system. You're analogies to diamonds make no sense because diamonds are easy to produce and their cost does not reflect either the demand or the production of th
38.
So an atheist, a muslim, a fruitarian and a futurist walk into a bar(wikipediawehaveaproblem.com)
2 points by hoofish 9y ago|0 comments
39.
by hoofish 9y ago
what's more Brave cuts off the monetization the channels are getting in USD from YT ads. Not good for YT channels, and unclear how it is good for the user other than "hey we figured out a way to cheat the system so you don't
40.
by hoofish 9y ago
thank you for a more thoughtful response amid the knee jerking in this thread. I think it is likely this is the future - and there is little to no mention of "asset backed tokens" which is the core of the ICO offering, essentially
41.
by hoofish 9y ago
not true if the token is an asset pegged token on future revenue.
42.
by hoofish 9y ago
Not necessarily true at all. ICOs can offer revenue pegged tokens against company future revenue - which is then used to buy back the tokens from the investors.
43.
by hoofish 9y ago
OpenLedger.io has a good exchange,including tokens that are pegged assets to USD and EU
44.
by hoofish 9y ago
excuse you? "spent some time working on pseudoscientists pages" IRL means I edited two biographical articles and focused primarily on meta data and non controversial biographical facts. Since when is someone accused of being a &qu
45.
RationalWiki's drinking games(wikipediawehaveaproblem.com)
1 points by hoofish 9y ago|0 comments
46.
by hoofish 9y ago
then check them, transparently, with me in this discussion. because they are references sited out of context in an intentional misinformation campaign to attack my reputation and status. you're not being forthcoming.
47.
by hoofish 9y ago
are you actually defending the RW article? It's obvious hatch job. The rationalwiki article references itself when it says "Viharo has a persecution complex.." and states that the entire site is a conspiracy theory and no evi
48.
by hoofish 9y ago
again, you're misinformed. it links DIRECTLY to the RW article, and that article is mentioned in many pages on WWHP. It links to comments made on talk pages out of context, read the actual links to WP pages and you will see.
49.
by hoofish 9y ago
I wasn't banned from Wikipedia for sock puppeting, you're stating misinformation from RationalWiki.
50.
by hoofish 9y ago
There are many ethereum sub reddits mentioning concern about your presence. Shrugging me off as a "Crank" is not something you can continue to do every time someone criticizes you or RationalWiki.
51.
by hoofish 9y ago
That's misinformation. I have nothing to do with PSI, i just focused on two biographies of two individuals who are fringe proponents. I specifically only edited basic biographical meta data. My detractors want to paint me as a fringe p
52.
by hoofish 9y ago
my bad, javascript. I'll correct it. and yes I know the difference, my platform is programmed in JavaScript.
53.
by hoofish 9y ago
skepticism is not extremist, but RW editors are extremists
54.
David Gerard vs. the blockchain, an emerging wiki war(wikipediawehaveaproblem.com)
62 points by hoofish 9y ago|50 comments
55.
by hoofish 9y ago
The issue is agenda based editing. While it is natural that people will disagree on context, that is not the problem, the problem is when you have agenda based editors who guard articles and suppress other viewpoints from any editing at all
56.
by hoofish 9y ago
damn you scarey
57.
by hoofish 9y ago
but those are not two mutually exclusive options. There is a difference between suppressing a minority voice (perspective) away from editing an article as opposed to INCLUDING a minority reference or fact in the article itself.
58.
by hoofish 9y ago
where specifically do you see that? It is detailed and mentioned both on Wikipedia itself and the website that the focus was on non controversial biographical information and had nothing to do with the ideas or the theories.
59.
by hoofish 9y ago
good point
60.
by hoofish 9y ago
you specifically said "who has tried to alter Wikipedia to support fringe scientists & alt-medicine gurus" That narrative is from RationalWiki, and is misinformation. This is very clearly detailed on the website.

More ›