The set of people who have access to the GitHub project (push privileges) might not be the same as the set of people who have access to said project's website.
People always claim this, but I'm not convinced. We've had a million scientific discoveries that for all practical purposes disprove a lot of religious claims. People seem to either just adapt their beliefs, ie. things move from literal to symbolic, or people simply choose not to believe or consider the facts despite clear evidence. I don't think simple facts or evidence will ever seriously threaten religious dogma for at least some portion of the population.
I agree that it will, for some portion, but that portion is ever diminishing.
An irrefutable discovery of complex alien life on another planet would, in my opinion, undoubtedly accelerate that rate of diminishment.
In the mean time, many people use the absence of any such discovery, as proof that earth is inexplicably unique so some magic creator deliberately blessed us to be here on this sacred planet.
I don't necessarily think Slack is worth $16B any time soon, but I actually do feel like my searchable Slack history stretching back ~5 years is one of the most valuable resources I have at my fingertips on a dailt basis. The search quickly pulls up stuff from years ago even stuff from before we changed the subdomain for the org.
Before Slack, that history might have been contained in email. Which has always been available and goes back decades in my case. Slack worries me in the sense that when it’s gone so is my data, but email I’ve always got my copy.
"Might". There's a lot slack channels that I'm somewhat privy to, but otherwise would be out of the loop on if it were an e-mail. It gives me access to a lot of institutional knowledge in my organization.
Someone has gone to prison for trying to pass off one-sided copies of actual currency? Seems pretty unlikely to me. Would be interested in reading about an actual case of this happening.
Why? The example from Piskvorrr is textbook violation of 18 U.S.C. 473: (paraphrasing here) Handing out fake money with the intent that it believed to be real is a crime.
Late reply here, but I was referring to the one-sided aspect. Just seems unlikely to me that someone would realistically intend for a one-sided copy of currency to be believed as real. Just seems like the threshold for printing both sides is so low that anyone who only printed one side must not really be intending for it to be taken as real, at least not for very long.
"Not for very long" - that's exactly the point of the currency-exchange scam:
- mark gets an offer of a great exchange rate from the con-man
- mark hands over real money
- gets a stack of something - the first few bills on the top and bottom are actual local currency, but most of it are one-sided counterfeits.
- con-man counts the money in a way that doesn't give this away - this obviously requires sleight of hand and insufficient lighting
- con-man disappears in crowd
- mark eventually realizes that most of the stack is worthless
The whole con takes a minute or two at most: that's not very long at all.
The critical section "mark no longer has original currency but hasn't yet realized he has been swindled" is as short as a few seconds; this has even been done with plain paper in some particularly audacious cases.
Indeed. It's always amazing to me when I think about the incredible applications of running water and plumbing in ancient Rome that was effectively lost for so many centuries starting with the dark ages.
The Minoan civilization flourished on the Isle of Crete in the Mediterranean from 3000 to 100 BCE. Until Roman times, Minoan plumbing and drainage were the most developed in what was then the Western World.
This is great. I have just recently purchased access to a VPN service and also a proxy service and have been learning about SSH tunneling. Can't wait to dig into this.
I think so. You could probably pick something better.
Its more of a Pavlovian reinforcement than reputation. You see what got you lots of points (what people liked) and you're more apt to do that in the future.
By keeping everyone else blind to someone's scores, you don't have as much popularity bias creeping in.
I think it is better to record the facts about people's opinions, than to count reputation points on identities.
For example, as ternary predicates:
1: water is wet
2: identity_1 corroborates 1
3: 2 by_way_of blind_faith
4: identity_2 denies 1
5: 4 by_way_of blind_faith
etc.
You can go as far with this as you want, and the consumer gets to decide what establishes or hurts credibility, and which statements of fact corroborated by what methods and by whom will either count toward or against the credibility of a specific form of statement on a specific topic by a specific set of identities.
For example, you could have predicates describing conflicts of interest, and identify the relevant conflicts of interest by querying for interests in the predicate in question to find what people you trust will say about the interest of individuals and organizations in corroborating or denying a particular claim.
You could also have predicates which show ways in which a statement is controversial in its general form, but is uncontroversial when refined. For example: liquid water can not be wetted with liquid water.
From an accounting perspective in this hypothetical scenario I believe that you would not be legally allowed to dip into the deposit money save for that recovered through bans. Which creates very perverse incentives.
Obviously you aren't going to be able to get everyone to agree on everything, but I think the vast majority of this is simply because people are easily manipulated, and are so prone to group think and jumping on the bandwagon. If it weren't for lobbying and political campaigns trying to tell you what to think, I believe that the vast majority of the public would be much more aligned.
Have you tried to get a group to consensus in an area where there isn't any lobbying or manipulation? People have lots of different ideas about how to do things, informed by different life experiences.
Political disagreement predates lobbying and campaigns by millennia.
