kaonashi

46 ms·

451.
by kaonashi 12y ago
https://www.bitwage.co/about#t6
452.
by kaonashi 12y ago
Oh dear god, no. People might actually use it. Better to make protocols fast.
453.
by kaonashi 12y ago
Objection? I think you mean denial.
454.
by kaonashi 12y ago
I guess I know how you like to spend your free time. Maybe you should get a life instead of harassing women.
455.
by kaonashi 12y ago
Death and rape threats are not protected speech.
456.
by kaonashi 12y ago
What you're saying is that traditional OO conflates polymorphism with encapsulation and inheritance, creating one big complexity murder-death-ball; whereas Haskell lets you have these things a-la carte, so you can deploy them as needed
457.
by kaonashi 12y ago
The dependency-injected style is great for mitigating side-effects and avoiding hard dependencies in code. The problem is that it's a poor substitute for currying and composition.
458.
by kaonashi 12y ago
>there's no reason large companies couldn't open BTC accounts at Chase or Wells Fargo and accept them directly That strikes me as a rather extraordinary claim.
459.
by kaonashi 12y ago
> Why would Goldman throw that much money at a new system, rather than using the existing one Why would Apple create their own app store, when they could just use existing ones?
460.
by kaonashi 12y ago
The problem is with a medium of exchange with 500% annual returns.
461.
by kaonashi 12y ago
How many ancient Egyptians are around wanting to trade their silver coin for cows?
462.
by kaonashi 12y ago
Not really a ledger, bitcoin is only an asset, never a liability.
463.
by kaonashi 12y ago
That benchmark confuses me; is it measuring the entire run of that script, i.e. is it measuring the setup (creating class, inserting into dom) on every run? If so that seems like the wrong way to go about testing performance.
464.
by kaonashi 12y ago
> Re-creating the entire DOM on each update probably does not help Perhaps you meant virtual DOM here? (in any case, the actual DOM is not recreated on every update)
465.
by kaonashi 12y ago
About ~50% developers/technology, ~30% marketing, ~20% customer service.
466.
by kaonashi 12y ago
Sounds like some pretty basic due diligence. But, I suppose if your main business is suborning illegal activity, it might make things a bit harder.
467.
by kaonashi 12y ago
Nope, a .com
468.
by kaonashi 12y ago
About 20% of the people I work with use Windows. None of them are developers.
469.
by kaonashi 12y ago
crickets
470.
by kaonashi 12y ago
You picked two areas with massive government regulation. So yes, when government acts as the intermediary, the private sector can stop failing at coordination.
471.
by kaonashi 12y ago
> If those activities are financed using tax money, it's called "government". Taxes don't finance US government expenditure; they create demand for the currency. > Then, the question we should ask ourselves, would
472.
by kaonashi 12y ago
Considering our government created the internet in the first place, I'm not sure that's a long-term winning strategy.
473.
by kaonashi 12y ago
In your case, the transaction is barter, a transfer of one non-financial asset for another. If you have a contract to provide 100 BTC, then that contract would be money, denominated in BTC (not the BTC themselves). It would exist on one ba
474.
by kaonashi 12y ago
Right; the savings (over conventional growing, not indoor w/HPS) would have to come from increasing yield due to the controlled environment.
475.
by kaonashi 12y ago
The LED grow lights seem to be a real game-changer; the most modest estimates put the power savings at ~%50 (over HPS).
476.
by kaonashi 12y ago
>Or am I missing something ? Banking.
477.
by kaonashi 12y ago
If they're stamped by the sovereign, they are. What matters is acceptance for payment of tax debt, that's what makes it the sovereign liability.
478.
by kaonashi 12y ago
All true, but it does not diminish my point; that since the dawn of capitalism, money has been a balance sheet phenomenon: being simultaneously someone's asset and someone else's liability, and in this Bitcoin is different.
479.
by kaonashi 12y ago
I think the sticking point there is differences in definition of 'unit of account'. My main point is that Bitcoin is nobodies liability; this is by design. The dollar is a liability of the issuer, which can be used to extinguish
480.
by kaonashi 12y ago
Out of curiosity, what use cases do you have for reader macros that tagged literals do not cover? http://clojure.org/reader#The%20Reader--Tagged%20Literals

More ›