Stupid. Are they going to tell us when men's physiques are photoshopped too? How about wrinkles or hair color changes or blemish and scar removals? What about wearing makeup?
It applies to men and to women, and not to blemishes or colours but to reshaping silhouettes. It's worth taking thirty seconds to read something before attacking it as stupid based on your imagination.
I thought there was a time like that too, but then I found chapter titles in "How to Win Friends and Influence People" like "A Formula That Will Work Wonders for You" (published 1936).
Critics say that the approval process proceeded without adequate data and under enormous pressure from state agriculture departments, industry groups and farmers associations. Those groups said that farmers desperately needed the new herbicide to control glyphosate-resistant weeds, which can take over fields and deprive soybeans of sunlight and nutrients
--
So a more honest headline would be:
"This miracle weed killer is saving farms as well as sometime devastating their neighbors"
The primary focus of the post is the negative effects of the pesticide that was allowed through _because_ it was able to be pushed through the typical protocols. It's a breakdown of the very regulation meant to protect people.
> A better title would be: "This miracle weed killer is saving farms as well as sometime devastating their neighbors"
Maybe the intent of cramming this pesticide to market was to save farms, but perhaps doing so was a bit hasty. Should we prioritize profits over healthcare and safety?
I think what you mean is "The miracle weed killer is saving the chemical pesticide executive's pensions, while often devastating neighboring farms". That's the real honest headline.
Tldr: bought bitcoin in 2010 and got lucky sitting on it
I find these story of stories silly but also indicative of the market. We are in a crytpocurrency mania and these read like the "Meet the 25 year old dot com millionaire who bought stock in valinux/webvan/pets.com/etc!" from 1998 that dragged even more nontechnical people into the manic runup then.
All I know is people that I'd never expect to know what bitcoin is are suddenly talking about it. What's that tell you?
It "already" went mainstream in 2012-2013. This is a second speculation bubble. It tells you to get out before it comes crashing down, because it will.
Yes, this reflects my position: I'm out of all cryptocurrencies except for a small bit to fuel a couple side projects. I'm waiting for the coming crash so I can buy.
Everyone says that but when the crash actually happens they always get cold feet because the prevailing view is that Bitcoin is dead and done and never going to recover so they lose their nerve and don't follow through. But best of luck.
No, I don't think you understand the scale we are talking about here if this becomes a world wide common digital currency. Your political dogma is getting in the way of you understanding what Bitcoin's real potential is.
Bitcoin will never become the "world wide common digital currency": it's deflationary in the long term, very volatile int he short term, and transactions are expensive and slow. Maybe some other cryptocurrency could, but not bitcoin.
It could stay as a store of value though, like gold.
Whether or not you think that matters is political dogma.
"very volatile int he short term"
Looking at the one year time scale BTC/USD is only about 2-3x as volatile as USD/EUR. Bitcoin volatility in general has been trending DOWN since it's inception as you would expect something to become more stable as the market matures and more people adopt it.
By what standard? A typical transaction costs less than a dollar and takes about 10 minutes. Once the people holding the block size hostage are out of the way you can expect the cost to return to cents and the speed to be more reliable at 10 minutes or less.
Anyone who thinks Bitcoin can be a store of value like Gold w/o having utility as money is fooling themselves. You need to both.
I don't understand why you think Lightning Network wouldn't be a solution - the crypto side of it is very well-specced and works, and there's plenty of research papers describing various methods of finding a reasonably short path across routes between nodes. It solves specific problems Bitcoin users have today (it provides fast, cheap transactions, which Bitcoin currently doesn't), so it will gain quick adoption.
It's primarily held up on Bitcoin's variant on party politics, more than anything else - there's functional payment channel code working on Litecoin's main network and Bitcoin's testnet.
Because all this digital coin thing is bullshit. When it becomes relevant, it will be corporate owned (isn't it already?) and it will be the new mainstream politics/economics, not the "REVOLUTION!". Just like Facebook/Google are the internet nowadays. Very far from that liberate and revolutionary thing, right?
It isn't very revolutionary - it's a capitalist system through and through. That has absolutely nothing to do with the technical details of why Lightning Network won't work.
I never said "lightning network" won't work. I said that it doesn't matter. If bitcoin someday becomes a thing, it will just behave like dollar, nothing less. With more technology, someone or some corporation will find a way to concentrate more power. Then someone will come up with an idea of a new way to do transactions. Algorithms don't fix social issues. People fix social issues.
> Bitcoin will never become the "world wide common digital currency": it's deflationary in the long term, very volatile int he short term, and transactions are expensive and slow. Maybe some other cryptocurrency could, but not bitcoin.
You said that Lightning network would drop transaction costs thus making bitcoin workable. I said it would do nothing because the problem is not technical but social. But I don't mind if you understood a different thing.
Bitcoin could be workable, and be a world wide common digital currency, without starting a revolution, you realise. A dollar that I can send to people without a bank being involved is still a useful concept.
I agree with you. I just don't think the banks and their private governmental armies will allow it to happen freely. And yes they can stop it. They probably are behing its creation, not a fake japanese alter-ego.
For starters the people pushing lightning are religiously opposing any increase in the block size. For lightening to even be viable on a world wide scale the block size will need to be increased.
The point of Lightning is that transactions don't go on the blockchain until they need to be settled - payment channels could be open for months or years without being settled if there's no need to access the underlying currency. If everyone uses Lightning Network for the vast, vast majority of transactions (and there's no reason not to), the only times most people would ever have to put something on the blockchain is when the entity on the other end of their payment channel disappears, or they have more currency than they've ever had before.
The issue, if anything, is exactly the opposite - that there'll be little incentive to mine without enough transactions on the chain, and the security of the network will come crashing down.
Lightning Network also provides for decentralised, trustless currency exchanges - so the inflexibility of one blockchain will finally not matter much. You could pay someone in bitcoin and the other person could receive litecoin as easily as you can do similar things with a credit card today.
You haven't addressed my comment you are just blabbering. In order to open and close lightening channels on chain transactions are required. Heck in order to protect yourself from fraud in the lightening model you need to be able to do on chain transactions.
Nothing you said addresses the concern that the people pushing lightening network the hardest are religiously opposed to raising the block size which will make it impossible to deploy lightening on a world wide scale because there won't be enough on chain transaction space to open up these lightening channels.
I'd have to have opened a grand total of one channel over the past four years, personally - I have a suspicion that most people do not regularly gain more income than they've ever had before, as they spend it at a broadly similar rate as they gain it.
In addition to this, as I said, the fact that Lightning Network is a protocol that allows cross-blockchain transactions between any two chains supporting Lightning Network means that if, as you say, Bitcoin has severe problems, everyone will just jump ship to another currency, as there will be far fewer switching costs.
Lightning network design is akin to tacking a vacuum tube communication system onto the outside of a defunct slow steam locomotive rail system.
It's nonsensical, because you might as well just design an entirely new protocol and token network (which is essnetialy what the lightning network is, and there's no reason to tie it to an existing cryptocoin ledger unless you're trying to improve the antiquated design which coincidently you have coin units in).
The issue is that Lightning Network depends on the ability to settle transactions in a double-spend-resistant cryptocurrency in order to work at all - the fraud resistance scheme depends on it, otherwise there is no way to prove that (a) money hasn't been created out of thin air and (b) two parties with a payment channel between them agree on the state of their money.
If you can successfully build a Lightning Network like system without a blockchain, please do.
Not in the short term, bud. I have always said about the real value of Bitcoin since I started mining in 2010: "What really is the value of money laundering, tax-less transactions and a quasi-anonymous store of value?" Bitcoin made the down payment on the car I drive every day. I know what Bitcoin is worth, but I'm telling you, we're in another speculation bubble in the short term, and it would be wise to gtfo of your position.
It's unlikely that hackers could manage even a Chernobyl-scale problem on a modern nuclear plant. Chernobyl had several horrendous flaws. For one, it had a positive feedback: as the fuel got hotter, the reaction sped up. With modern plants the opposite occurs.
Also Chernobyl had no containment dome.
Even the old GenII designs in the U.S. have much better inherent safety than Chernobyl had. There's no way to hack away physical barriers. Even TMI, our worst accident ever with a full meltdown, did not breach the containment barriers.
And of course with any commercial plant, there's absolutely zero chance of an actual nuclear detonation, much less a thermonuclear one as mentioned in the comment above. The fuel just isn't enriched enough to work as a bomb.
Reality minus the garbage clicky headline: Antibiotic overuse and resistance is causing unstoppable bacteria.
Why there isn't a global effort to develop new antibiotics is somewhat shocking to me. It is already a major public health problem and will get worse if new antibiotics are not developed. Governments need to incentivize new antibiotic develop heavily, or invest in it heavily themselves.
"Governments need to incentivize new antibiotic develop heavily"... Governments overloaded by debts must invest billions just to allow people to enjoy their "rights" to free sex...
U are deluded, wake up 'cause it's over: USE CONDOM!
Hate the click bait headlines, totally degrading to a paper like Washington post that presumably wants to maintain respectability. But you won't believe what happens next!
My favorite HN moment was when we were all debating whether a crew could burn a shipwrecked boat for several years. Someone who happened to be burning a boat for fuel for years stepped in and confirmed it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10803552
Mine (in this vein at least) was when someone posted an article about optimizing FedEx's location and then someone who was involved with it stepped in and gave the real story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9281466
Probably not the best idea. While they do tend to summarise well, comments tend to be filled with opinion - generally a better idea to ensure you form your own, rather than rely on a potentially biased third party.
I also find that the discussions in certain comments/responses can tend to go largely off topic. When you're on mobile, instead of scrolling ALL the way down to the next parent comment, you (I, at least), tend to navigate away to other HN posts.
But the article is a biased opinion of a single third party? It's better to rely on HN comments where the discussion is open rather than blindly accepting what a journalist writes.
Don't forget their long status as a mockingbird operation. You got downvoted with no comment because there is very little intellectually honest retort to be had, but in their defense, the surveillance state and general degredation of journalism as a whole has affected much more than just WaPo.
The fourth estate is dying and the internet, which should be it's replacement, is under legislative attack because it is a threat to the oligarchy.
For folks who didn't understand the Operation Mockingbird reference, it seems to refer to the CIA in the 50s - 70s hiring the publisher & co-owner of the Washington Post, to run a propaganda operation feeding misinformation to reporters at all the major newspapers in the US:
Well, the internet is also under attack from various actors seeing to distort the narrative for their own means. Tons of planted comments and highly questionable "news" websites".
Traditional media had similar problems, but to a much lesser extend... and the biases/propaganda were much more obvious.
Indeed, the sockpuppetry really hit hard around 2010/2011, and I've yet to see a website handle it very well. Honestly HN is one of the last places I take the actual time to comment on because of it. There are some methods that slashdot uses that I think could also be helpful, but there is no easy fix.
Like you said though, one interesting side-effect is that for the astute reader you can discern what the talking points of the day/week/month are by paying attention to the narrative.
If I'm going to read a daily, it's probably the Washington Post, NY Times or the WSJ. I haven't noticed a particular drop in quality of any of those three. Why do you think the Post has gotten worse?
Also, it doesn't "kill kindness", it reduces the empathy of test subjects, but actually what they measured is estimations of the pain experienced by others. Which doesn't seem exactly like empathy, and definitely isn't kindness, because kindness is action.
The entire news industry is in dire straits so clickbait is only going to get worse. I remember it was just 10 years ago, the news industry was desperately trying to game the SEO to stay afloat, now they have entire social media teams dedicated to clickbaiting headlines and spamming stories on social media. WaPo got a huge cash infusion from Bezos ( AMZN founder ) and they hired a bunch of social media "experts" so they will be at the forefront of the new clickbait norm. Despite Bezos' assertions, he is going to expect "dividends" from his investment in WaPo.
Whereas other industries fully recovered from the financial crisis via cheap debt, the news industry only stopped the bleeding. Their wound hasn't healed and only that cheap debt goes away, the blooding letting in the industry is going to happen again. So you can't blame them for trying any desperate tactic to stave off layoffs/collapse/etc.
But if you think about it, the news industry has always been at the forefront of clickbait. In the late 1800s, during the heyday of yellow journalism, Hearts and Pulitzer intentionally lied and pushed clickbait via their news properties. If you were around during 2000, you know that the news industry feasted on the Y2K scaremongering clickbaits.
I think the clickbait was always there. It's just now, people are more aware of it.
A reblog vomit with a garbage bait headline composed of comments on hackernews? What a turd of an "article" and I assume it represents all of "qz.com" quality
Lots of them. There are tons and tons of pretty incredible guitarists, young and old, male and female, all over youtube. None of them are blowing up huge with original work, but they can cover well-known tunes impecably.
Search for guitar licks and chord sweeps, and follow a few different branches of linked playlists offered up in the sidebar.
"Impecably" comes from the latin root for sin. It must be the problem, goody two shoes ain't rock 'n' roll. It used to be about a rebellious nature. If it's right then it's all wrong, you know?
If a picture is printed, it has been edited.