i don’t know. the past decade has been everyone shouting about network effects, yet i can’t count on either hand the number of matching-related apps i’ve both left and joined over that duration. on the other hand, i’m still using basically the same http networking protocol during that same duration. network effects are real (hence http still dominating), but the higher you crawl up the stack the “softer” the effect.
i'd be really curious how the author approaches DMs. microblogging didn't make sense to me until i realized that the timeline can just be used as an approach to easily create surface-level connections, with the more fulfilling interactions happening in DMs (or more often, Matrix chatrooms, since i use ActivityPub instead of Twitter and in my corner Matrix is ubiquitous).
i’m frequently confused by people referring to “anonymous” accounts on Twitter. every Twitter user needs a handle, so it’s not really possible to use it anything less than pseudonymously AIUI.
by “anonymous”, do most people mean pseudonymous users who haven’t established an identity (i.e. few to no posts, or no bio, or egg avatar)? or do most people mean to capture all pseudonymous users under that “anonymous” label? (in which case, how does one evaluate if the user is pseudonymous or using their legal name? even blue-checks can be pseudonymous).
According to the dictionary [0], the usage is fine. You seem to use the following definition:
> 3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
Which is clearly not true for Twitter users due to their handle and public profile. However, it's also defined as:
> 2 : not named or identified
The example is even a book author, which you'd classify as pseudonymous. I think in this case it makes sense to make the distinction, since there are anonymous social networks, but it's not technically wrong.
In this case, I'd argue it is. Twitter is anonymous in the sense that you don't need a real name for an account, but the Twitter handle and picture is clearly presented on every Tweet and the user profile is not only very visible, it's actually pretty essential due to the follow-mechanic.
This is very different compared to more anonymous forums like 4chan, (former) YikYak and it's successor Jodel. User profiles exist in all of these, but are not presented or publicly visible and postings are not linked to the same account, excluding direct replies.
It clearly isn't because in this case the context is the OP said their rule was not to follow _anonymous accounts_. It really is just painful pedantry to do the WELL AKSHUALLY thing when the intended meaning is abundantly clear to everybody including those who have never have seen or used twitter before.
sorry to come off as pedantic: it's not my intent. everyone has different experiences on Twitter, and this relates to an experience i don't have much of.
a _lot_ of people complain about "anonymous Twitter users", and i want to understand what they mean by that. i think it's the sort of "[anonymous] asshole slides into my timeline and then leaves" behavior. and if so, i suspect it's not actually identity or its form but _reputation_ that matters in these interactions: "non-reputable asshole slides into my timeline" (and so considering reputation becomes important in your interactions). but they could equally mean "this person could have multiple identities on this site and that doesn't work for me" (e.g. some person could be playing both a left-leaning and a right-leaning account and using those multiple identities to drive a wedge into some community), so maybe they really do want to avoid interacting with people who don't have a verifiably singular identity (this isn't easy).
i should have distilled it to that point: when a person says they don't deal with anonymous users, do they actually care about identity, or are they using identity as a proxy for reputation -- and reputation is the more direct concern?
one usually hears the opposite argument: Bitcoin becomes more scarce as users lose their private keys. lost keys => smaller supply => higher price per unit. i can see the opposite argument though: lost keys => less desire to interact with bitcoin => lower demand => lower price per unit. so it might just be a wash.
The former relationship wouldn't play out IRL, since there's no authoritative "lost bitcoin registry" to signal to buyers that the supply has effectively decreased
the effect of supply on demand does indeed require that buyers know something about the supply
I mean, just think about it for a moment: how many bitcoins were "lost" today? Was it 0 or 100,000? Perhaps it's -100,000, because somebody gained access to 100,000 that were previously lost.
If it doesn't make a difference, then the supply isn't affecting demand
If it DOES make a difference, then demand can't be affected, because nobody knows whether it was 0 or 100,000 or -100,000
The effect of supply and demand on price come from people bidding on the free market, not from anyone on the market knowing the global supply and demand.
If people have to know supply and demand to determine prices, how can free market work for thousands of years before the basic principle of economics is established?
Eth fell by about 10% relative to BTC pretty much immediately as the Terra/Luna stuff went south. yeah, there's absolutely connections between all the different currencies out there, but they're not equal strength. it's hard to draw good conclusions from price data just because there's so little of it. the last year's been stable with Eth:BTC confined to within 0.06 - 0.08. but zoom out just one more year and the range triples. over more meaningful durations, the different currencies show a lot less correlation.
> I’m also never going to rely on anything but .com because I don’t trust ICANN.
what's wrong with the other 2 of the "original 3" gLTDs: .net and .org?
i spent an afternoon digging into the ownership of all of this stuff, and .org felt like the safest option. .com and .net are more directly owned/operated by a US for-profit company (Verisign) who has complied with US requests to seize .com domains in the past. .org at least still has structural ties to a non-profit with chapters across the globe, even if it's incorporated in the US.
> Everyone running a high-level domain like that is essentially rent-seeking, no?
Possibly as a technical, economics definition. I'd say no because real registries are adding value. What I'd call rent-seeking here specifically is destroying the market just to increase one's share of it.
The value I see registries providing is in large-part just consistency. A .com should cost and act about the same 10 years from now as it does today. If you start exponentially increasing cost (well past inflation), you're mostly just holding everyone hostage that currently owns a domain, until everyone is priced out and the TLD is destroyed.
> there a better term for 'high-level domain'?
IMO TLD is fine for this level of conversation, I'm not 100% sure if it's technically correct or not in _all_ cases, but it gets the right idea across. A "domain registry" or just "registry" is a good term for an entity running a TLD.
They’re probably ok, but .com is massive by comparison and there’s strength in numbers. Anything shady involving the .com TLD will get immediate, large scale publicity and pushback.
> what's wrong with the other 2 of the "original 3" gLTDs: .net and .org?
I find it interesting which TLDs took off and which didn't. I see exceedingly little use the venerable of .biz and .info, for example, yet .co has seen broader adoption in a shorter time frame.
Not to be over picky, but from my first memories of the Internet at uni (1990) there were 5 tlds, in addion to the ones you mentioned were ac (academic) and gov. Both are not open to the general public though so your point stands.
> Most world governments and taxing authorities work for their populace, they could be easily voted out if people saw what other nations are benefiting from such innovation.
you've got a lot of faith in "most world governments and taxing authorities". here in the US, i look at other countries who include in their tax statements a breakdown of where all your tax bill is going. that looks like a thing those other citizens benefit from, so please tell me: how can i vote this into effect here?
it's about the economics of mining _using an external source of capital_. the more significant interaction is not between the ASICs and the bitcoin rewards, but the companies and their investors. in that sense, it's more accurate to say it has "everything to do with public stock markets".
the author gives the oil analogy. the oil wells themselves have very similar economics to mining. it's the relationship between these similar operations and the investors which sets them apart more than the activity they're involved in.
modern day i expect to not have to turn off/on my receiver: it should wake on input and go into a standby state after so much inactivity.
hence my problem: i’ve got the Technics receiver + stereo speakers i inherited, but if you leave the receiver on for more than a couple days without explicitly venting it’ll cut out (even if it’s inactive: its idle power draw is incredible). that’s fine for me, but if i’m the only one who cares about audio, it’s a hassle for everyone else in the house to manually flip the rocker switch on as they use the tv and off when they’re done.
now i think about it, there’s probably some “smart outlet” i could get to make this transparent.
Mine does wake on input, but it doesn't change inputs automatically. So if it's off and I send sound to it on some input, it'll wake and set that input. But if it's already on on a separate input, it won't switch.
In my case, I turned that off, because I don't want it to randomly turn on while I'm away (it's connected to a computer I tend to leave on with spotify running). But the fire TV remote is actually able to tell it to switch to a specific input, which is exactly what I need, since that will also turn it on if it was off.
we used to have a phrase to remind each other not to give attention to the bad actors: “don’t feed the trolls” (doesn’t capture 100% of attention sinks, but it’s catchy, and a certain percentage of people understood that the phrase could apply more broadly). it occurred to me that i haven’t heard this phrase in several years now.
That is very strange. I also have not heard it for a long time. Though it seems like trolling used to be a niche activity in which someone would say or do something specifically just to attempt to harm anyone who came across it.
But it feels like half of the news cycle has that kind of attack now, a large part of the politicians make those kinds of intentionally bad faith arguments, they've become accustomed to telling stories with the specific intention of getting people angry, I guess it gets votes. It seems like trolling was just too effective politically, you and your friends can laugh at your little sticker at the gas pump while imagining all those libs that are gonna be seething when they see what amounts to your intentionally crafted commentary, made to enrage not engage, that you place in a public service so that you have a high chance of at least making someone angry.
I think we all know who might've done the most towards normalizing such juvenile behavior. I hope we can win our civility back.
Once given a name (a sort of attention) they became a subculture. It would happen without the term anyway, but I feel it played a role. Instead of knowing/explaining how to deal with it, innocent citizens began to just call each other trolls for various reasons, and the original “don’t feed” part was lost.
