You're not going to like it, but I think the men you usually find attractive are out of your league
Also, unfortunately, in today's society, high value men have less incentive to settle down. That is sad. Someone desirable to you, probably is for many other girls too, and they know that
You might be a great person/woman, but might have something turning down people as well... I can't say. We, internet strangers, can't help without knowing you
I don’t believe in the concept of out of your league or better or worse people . I don’t think there are better or worse people. I’ve dated all kind of guys, the last one I truly loved most people said was way “below my league” but love doesn’t work that way. It’s about fit.
I liked the fact that they were outliers.
Attractive men who didn't know that they were attractive.
And appreciated and saw my intelligence.
And socially awkward, so I felt I had something to bring to the relationship and that I wouldn't have to compete too hard for them, like they'd be nicely tucked behind their computer away from other women to steal from me.
And very data-driven, scientific-minded, so I felt confident their caring meant something - and that they were honest, not manipulative.
And that my ability to present myself well and emotional intelligence was something of value to them, that they admired.
You answered the thing you feared to answer elsewhere :) Or perhaps there's more?
A lot of this makes sense. This seems consistent with my understanding of who you are. If your assessment of them was accurate, I'm surprised they left so readily. This makes me wonder what the 12 or so second dates would say.
I wonder if this suggests there were men you were even more interested in who you didn't go out with again because they seemed too perfect, because you felt you wouldn't be good enough.
I think their business model is like a gym - they need people making an effort to cancel, not to renew... Crypto works for one-time payments, but it sucks for recurring transactions. Too much hassle to pay every month, people would just give up.
It's a good point but worth noting that the Mullvad VPN (which, like porn, has a strong driver for privacy) recently got rid of susbscription payments altogther.
Their reasoning was that you can't handle recurring payments without holding a lot of personal data.
Perhaps porn sites that want to offer inter-species furry porn should bite the bullet and only accept one-off payments, just so they can make effective use of crypto.
Recurring payments should be initiated on the client side (or at your bank) anyways... Not initiated by the business you are buying from... That's a good way to get screwed.
With micropayments, the business model becomes (quite literally) pay-per-view.
> it sucks for recurring transactions.
The UX is bad at the moment, but with crypto there is this idea of "streaming payments", which work very well as a substitute for subscriptions. Basically, you make only one initial transaction to set up the "subscription" with a locked deposit. On every block (or on every X seconds if you are doing off-chain), a small transfer is made. You only pay gas if you need to "top-up" the balance or when you want to close the stream.
I can sign 12 transactions with my private key now and automate sending them out every month. If I don't want to be responsible for sending the transactions, a smart contract can do it for me. This can be abstracted away from the user and made as intuitive as any other payment flow.
There might be a smart contract that acts as a hot wallet where you fund once to authorize, and every month the contract owner/operator can withdraw X amount of Ether from your quota. They pay for the gas but if L2 is used and transactions are batched, that's negligible.
If your quota has insufficient Ether or you've deauthorized the contract, your "subscription" will be cancelled automatically.
I think recurring payments are a pretty good use case for smart contracts, you load up a wallet defined in the contract with some cash, similar to a prepaid debit card, then authorize scheduled payments specifying a recipient, a frequency, and an amount.
It’s not ideal for that type of derelict subscription business model (e.g. the gym), but neither are prepaid debit cards or virtual cards with predetermined spending limits, and they probably already contend with those.
That's a good point. I think other business models are possible, though, if less lucrative. One example is one-time payments to buy videos, or to tip an artist that you for some reason feel like tipping.
People back then used to have (almost) free labor. That is one variable that also changed over time. All that pretty architectural features took a lot of effort and time. Usability is one factor, but many things past civilizations did were only possible because they only paid for food (and often, not enough)
silly question, being USDT "only" 80B, why does it matter if it collapses? considering cryptos market cap is more than 1T, and 100B's wipeouts routine, sometimes during crypto winters (where we observe -80% across the board) or collapses such as Luna recently (>50B? no idea)
Of course, panic would happen, but still. I think people would move on, forget, and continue believing whatever they want to
Market cap is not the sum of all injected capital, it’s the total supply multiplied by the most recent value of a unit. For example, if you paint 2 paintings and sell them to me for $100 each, and then I sell 1 of them for $1000 to a third-party, the market cap of your paintings is $2000 ($1000 x 2 paintings) despite there only being $1100 dollars spent.
It’s plausible that there’s less than $80bn of USD in the crypto market and so tether could well represent every single dollar available. I don’t know if I’d argue that is the case, but it’s certainly plausible — and so it’s easy to see how a collapsing tether could take down the entire market, or at least, represent a far greater threat than the ~5% it represents in market cap numbers.
De-fi doesn't _technically_ need it but it's highly preferable.
Let's say you want to actively trade ETH against the USD. If you think ETH will go down the you want to sell it. Now if it's in a non-custodial wallet that you control, you would need to send it to an exchange, sell it, then hold USD on the exchange (were you have no control of it and they can seize it for fraud investigations, etc. - basically your money is held by a 3rd party).
Instead you can "sell" your ETH by trading it for a stablecoin pegged to the dollar. This way the only risk is the contract for the trade (which can be publically audited) and your money stays in your control.
Or if you wanted to accept cryptocurrency as payment but still only wanted the USD because of it's stability - you could accept that (this isn't very common as gas fees are rather high).
tl;dr - With exchanges a 3rd party has your money and a IOU. Coinbase has already said user crypto could be at risk in the case of bankrupcy. De-Fi removes this risk while still allowing you to trade against the USD.
disclaimer - Whether you want to do this might be a different question, just giving the reason for wanting a stablecoin.
edit: For those saying taxes - the US IRS still counts this as a sale and it's still taxed the same as an exchange trade - other countries might differ. Given the KYC/AML requirements and lack of general public knowledge about anonymity of crypto - I think sooner then later we'll see a crackdown.
> "If you have any comments about our WEB page, you can write us at the address shown above. However, due to the limited number of personnel in our corporate office, we are unable to provide a direct response."
Reading that from them is hilarious. The message might be about being a bootstrapper and not spending frivolously.... or simply saying they don't care, who knows?
They are famously lean staffed at head office. Something like 40 staff. Apparently if you call at like 7 or 8am you'll sometimes get Buffett answering the phones himself.
I like that approach where you just randomly get the top person. Like anyone could just email Steve Jobs at Apple and sometimes he would personally answer when he felt like it.
FWIW, I've seen a few stories of people - nobodies - sending a letter as a thank for the knowledge provided, the inspiration or what not and getting a genuine letter back. Obviously not a whole spiel, but a sentence or two indicating intent. Despite their massive notoriety, I wouldn't expect he's getting swamped by letters (tho I could be wrong) so I'd find it quite plausible and in-character he'll take the time to read a handful a week (a lifetime of 10-Ks would make anyone a proficient reader) and write back (I guess with some templates to go off from). I'd be surprised if sending a letter to Meta reaches Mark - tho maybe, I guess he receives fewer thankful ones - but that lean HQ culture of Berkshire seems rather unique with a measly single and modestly sized floor to manage one of largest balance sheets out there.
OMG, again? Are we going to see this every week now? This guy has two jobs already and still has time to brag about and promote his blog? Please don't ruin the remote work for us.
We all agree about how much important debian is for all tech community. Why is it so difficult to scale their snapshot service? Serving static files at scale is a solved problem. Am I missing something? Can't a cloud provider help them out?
This lazy constant pulling of dependencies by CI systems and containers is not very substainable. pypi should set up limits and make people use some cache proxy.
I worked at a place (briefly) where the CI process was pulling down 3-4GiB of container images for every run. Same repos, same sites, every check-in on every branch pushed to GitHub set up a blank environment and pulled everything down afresh. Then the build process yoinked dozens of packages, again with no cache. It must have consumed terabytes a day. Madness!
I am curious about how such a cache could be setup reliably.
1. Proxy inside the company network that intercepts every request to pypi? Doesn't work well due to https, I guess.
2. Replacing pypi in your project description with your own mirror? Might work, but at least slows down every build outside of your network. Also needs to be replicated for npm, cargo, maven, docker, ...
3. Start a userspace wrapper before starting the build that transparently redirects every request. That would be the best solution, IMO. But how do I intercept https requests of child processes? Technically, it must be possible, but is there such a tool?
> Also needs to be replicated for npm, cargo, maven, docker, ...
All these frameworks come with a tool to run an internal repo/mirror.
There are also commercial offerings (like artifactory) that cover all these languages in a single tool.
For python, just set PIP_INDEX in the CI environment to point to the internal mirror and it will be used automatically. It's very easy.
By default the downloaded wheels are cached in ~/cache/somewhere. Isolated builds don't benefit from it if they start with a fresh filesystem on every run, consider mounting a writable directory to use as cache, the speedup is more than worth it.
Just so. It does take a little configuration. The system I was talking about had been band-aided since the company's two-person days, when I'm sure the builds were a fraction of the size. Good example of infra tech debt.
pip can be configured to use a local warehouse, and there are warehouses that transparently proxy to pypi, but caches any previously fetched result. E.G: https://pypi.org/project/proxypypi/
Since you control it, and it's read only from the outside, you can actually expose it even outside of your network.
But indeed, it must be replicated for npm, cargo, maven, docker...
Setting up your own proxy that covers pretty much everything (maven/npm/nuget/pypi/gems/docker/etc.) is not difficult and takes only a few hours of work. I went for sonatype nexus, but many (most?) cases can even be covered with nginx caching proxy.
AIUI, PyPI doesn't _actually_ cost that much to host: it's all donated/sponsored hosting (with data largely served from Fastly), and the "cost" I'd expect is "what it would cost if we actually had to pay the normal published prices".
Is that with at least some attempt at building a CDN? Generally cloud providers don't charge for traffic between hosts in the same availability zone. One could think about putting a slave into each major availability zone of various cloud providers. The main service would then only be used to create HTTP redirects to the specific slave, or if none exists, or the package isn't replicated yet at the slave, just answer directly.
Even if such a system isn't built, with that kind of money on the table you could get a team of FANG scale developers to build it for you.
All the CI/CD build agents with no cache and so on. This is a general problem for all tech. For the web, cache is cheap but as far as I know there is no equal way to cache builds as cheap.
I think there needs to be a redesign in how dependencies work in most programming languages. Deterministic builds have been such a game changer and I think that CPU vs bandwidth may be the next big area to explore when it comes to compiling code.
Perceived value. It worths what people are willing to pay for. A lot of things work that way. Skeptics might wonder how long it would last, but less about how much it should be worth. People aren't only buying tech.
We do have a lot of scammers and useless coins, but tech is only one indicator of value, not the ultimate method to predict perceived value.
Also, unfortunately, in today's society, high value men have less incentive to settle down. That is sad. Someone desirable to you, probably is for many other girls too, and they know that
You might be a great person/woman, but might have something turning down people as well... I can't say. We, internet strangers, can't help without knowing you