sigh it’s a shame how poorly firefly has aged

Yeah the feds are the feds. That’s it

Fair enough. I was flippant with you, turnabout is fair play.

Anyway, I just think ultimately this whole enterprise doesn’t make sense so long as the majority of cryptos depend on a system that requires more and more computing power the more people get involved. The math is simple here to me, you disagree.

Have a good one

Man it’s amazing how every 5 years there’s a new solution that doesn’t solve it.

yeah well unfortunately techno bro fascists/crypto bros aren’t exactly the most progressive minds, and let me tell you: they are fucking hostile to renewables.

And before you start lecturing me about how it’s about the tech or whatever, let me also tell you: I was mining literally over a decade ago. I know what crypto is, I know what mining is, and I know how this shit works. It is concretely unsustainable and back asswards, as I said. It will not be what the evangelists tell you. It’s been 15 years. It’s a casino, it’s a desperate attempt at getting rich because people are losing faith in traditional economic mobility (rightfully so).

Remember when everyone was all about Argentina’s grand experiment? Fucking crickets now.

Four Tet - “Hands”

Yeah like I get they’re just trying to have a fun thought exercise, but I could point to so many things off the top of my head as reasonable, equally valid explanations

I’m mostly talking about the stuff I see on a TV when I’m in a waiting room or an airport or something

That is not universal at all. There are so many factors at play. I’m sure it happens but again, not universal.

I get that, but the point is you can’t even remotely answer this question without one lol and even then it’s a VERY difficult question to answer.

So yeah you’re right, but then that means it’s a bad question if we’re going to go that route with this. How on earth could any of us determine this, even anecdotally?

I get this seems pedantic but it’s just not a question anyone can answer even informally.

They usually depend on just making you remember them (the most extreme example I can think of is the “I’m on a horse” old spice ad from like 15 years ago, which admittedly is very clever/funny/well executed), regardless of the message or context. They just want brand recognition a lot of the time. You’re at the supermarket, you see 10 of basically the same cereal, but this one brand of cereal feels more legit or just “draws you in” because of a subconscious association. In that way unfortunately it works most of the time, especially if you don’t have a strong opinion on a product.

That’s not how determining causation works, especially when applying it to something so nebulous as “the office.” There is no doubt it had an impact but determine how much vs. other factors is basically impossible if you’re looking at decades and such a broad net.

You’re printing the promise of money using your actual money to pay an increased electric bill. Assuming you don’t get scammed, forget your pass, lose your key, etc.

Also destroying the planet for literally no reason (particularly PoW coins like Bitcoin) because difficulty is completely artificial. It’s what makes mining so absurd - the more miners, the more power/silicon wasted, but the output is exactly the same because the release rate is set. More adoption = less efficiency. It’s completely back asswards.

Huh that’s weird. My parents bought new cars and their car insurance basically doubled. Equal-tier vehicles to their older ones, but new.

I thought that happened? I’ve noticed unsubscribing is generally like 2 clicks now. I almost always see a link at the bottom of emails.

Still has a chilling effect on pushback

I love how I’ve lost all perspective on what a “normal” ad is. Whenever I see one I’m often either super confused at the approach or it’s so bland I just don’t care. Once you stop seeing them routinely they feel so ridiculous

Going through TSA.

Too many changes over 30 years to possibly define how much that did/didn’t matter.

I don’t disagree with any of this, but I still feel this post is a bad idea and a ton of randos online trying to oblige the request makes it even worse. This isn’t someone getting armed with information, whether we feel the insistence that diagnoses by professionals are a form of gatekeeping or not. This is someone getting opinions to act on from random people in an attempt to faux-diagnose someone they don’t even really know. This isn’t remotely an evidence-based exercise. This is a bad idea. Frankly I can’t be convinced otherwise on that.