This is not the only class of accidental-but-plausible transactions. Why not just use "reason to believe the payment is valid" directly rather than singling out creditors?
What circumstance do you have in mind in which the person receiving the transaction would A) have reason to believe the payment is valid, B) not be considered a “creditor”?
One could have a reasonable belief that the payment was intended as a gift, in which case the recipient would not necessarily be a "creditor" but there is still no reason for them to believe that the payment was invalid.
There's got to be more to this because even though I consume prolific amounts of caffeine I do not experience any pain on cessation. Yet, many of my coworkers do feel this pain.
I can't tell if you offering this as something that's sane to do or not. I think you should absolutely be able to install the software you want in your lexus; the built-in software is often terrible (yes, including tesla).
off topic, and it makes for boring conversation. but:
> "Downvoting has always been used to express disagreement." Paul Graham, February 16, 2008.
this is something that bothered me for years. I know this is how people behave, that the workflow allows and enables it, and the culture we've built around our tools enforces that. When I watch my own feelings before downvoting it isn't my rational self but my petty lizard-brain which does this. It feels good for 1 second before I feel small and petty. Often it bothers me that I did it and I return to the button 3 minutes later undoing the downvote for a neutral no-vote.
Who is served by the downvote? Is it the downvoter who feels upset another person disagreeing and now able to vent? Or the downvotee who can use the experience to learn what language to avoid? Or is it only the platform provider that benefits? If it's only the platform it seems like a very blunt and rudimentary tool IMHO. Perhaps a downvote is still less inflammatory for discourse than an angry reply and so a compromise? Regardless it's still lizard-brained and impulsive every time I use it and the more I think about it the more I'm puzzled that this is form of behavior modification is all we have after so many years on the Web. The biggest lie we tell ourselves is that sharing these thoughts are actually well thought-through "opinions" when in reality it's just "thinking out loud" or "reactions to other people thinking out loud". It's not like writing a letter, diary or journal. The Tech moves fast but our social collective behavior takes millenia to adjust and cope.
Anyway I wish there was a switch that allowed me to hide the downvote button, and if I wanted to enable it, then it could only be done by a forced delay of X hours into the future when activated. I'd like to eliminate downvoting as a behavior in myself in 2021 - not for others sake but for my own inner peace. And also because none of it matters really.
I’m served by the downvote in knowing that what I said was downvoted. Usually, I don’t need a substantive conversation from everyone who dislikes my comment. The signal that someone dislikes is useful enough.
It’s like in a conversation, sometimes I’ll see a frown or drawn up eyes. I don’t want, or need, every time I say something stupid to have the other conversants stop me and say “well prepend, in that usage...”
I think there’s a mismatch of conversation goals. The school of thought that downvotes shouldn’t be used seems to value engagement over value and content. My goal is to learn and teach the most through comments. To convince and be convinced. As efficiently as possible.
Looking back at comments that are -n the downvotes are usually enough to understand what I did wrong and how to improve. Not always, but usually. And I would have hated it instead of that score I had n+2 comments engaging with me for how they didn’t like it. Or worse, no comment and no downvote. I think the latter is more likely as while I will downvote things I don’t like, I’ll rarely comment unless I have something substantive to say.
I think one of the main defects in Facebook, Twitter, etc is that there is no downvote, only upvote. So there’s no social norm to signify displeasure so we get into this weird cycle where people only know what works and it’s harder to know what doesn’t work.
I think social medial would be better off if we could distinguish the 1million upvoted content vs the 1million up, 1 million down, net zero content. But social media doesn’t really care about providing great content, they only want content good enough to keep me screaming and clicking.
As a personal experiment, I'm going to leave this enabled for myself and see how long before I find the urge to downvote some comment. :D
Original: You could hide the button with TamperMonkey pretty easily (send an email if you genuinely want to, looked at it, and couldn’t figure it out, and I’ll try to help)
Then, the “only after reflection” I’d implement by forcing myself to use another browser or toggling the element title or the extension. I don’t downvote very often (probably 20:1 up to down vote ratio), but I do know that some of mine are still lizard brain.
I found a way here on HN to use uBlock to set Dark Mode and undo the downvote colors. I don't remember who suggested the Dark Mode. This is from "My Filters"
Where in the guidelines does it say you must provide a comment if you're going to downvote? I've just read them twice and don't see it. In fact, the only thing I see relevant to your comment is:
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Gas heaters still require electricity for basic management.
I'd imagine heaters have batteries for specifically this case. If they don't, it's frankly a miracle if we don't lose anyone, and someone needs to get prosecuted.
It is not feasible to run a gas furnace off a battery (short of a "whole house" battery like a Powerball). It's more than just basic management. You need to run either a blower or a pump to distribute the heat throughout the house. You'd need a substantial battery to run a 1/3 HP motor for any length of time.
A gas boiler furnace with steam radiators typically only requires power for the thermostat and solenoid valve, which can indeed be powered by a small battery. This is assuming you have a pilot light, which many older furnaces do.
Residential steam boilers are pretty rare these days. Generally hot water heat uses circulation pumps (which draw less than a forced air blower, but still have a non-trivial continuous current draw)
Furnaces don’t come with batteries because a 12v 100Ah battery that costs $180 will run a 1/3rd HP (700w) fan for 2 hours. To sustain the fan for 3 days, you’d need 36 batteries. Lead-acid batteries have a limited lifespan. You would also need a transfer switch and enclosures and at that point you may as well buy a UPS or a natural gas generator to provide backup power.
One thing the NEC 2020 update allowed is bi-directional power between an EV and its charger, you can set up an EV to provide backup power your house, with a transfer switch and everything.
Radiant heating systems with boilers require electricity for the pump, even if they’re gas fired. Electric resistive heating needs electricity. Forced air heating needs electricity to run the fan. All heating systems require electric power, even if the heat is generated by burning natural gas.
We're talking about forced air furnaces here, I think. Something has to force the air. A big blower motor that takes hundreds of watts.
Forced air heat is not great in terms of comfort, but in Texas you already have all the ductwork and the blower motor and so on for AC, so it's simplest just to add a gas burner to that.
> But there's nothing like writing a book about something to help you learn it.
This is the motto of silicon valley if I've ever heard it—all the good parts and bad parts smushed into a singular brand. The bad parts are pure narcissism; the good parts are more or less asking "am I doing harm by investing in this predatory business"? Unfortunately, the answer is mostly "yes".
The "motto of silicon valley" is that...writing a book about something is a good way to help you learn it? That's kind of an unexpected take.
Lots of people who've written books, including good books, have made this observation btw. That's because it's true. I've heard some of them say it personally.
Why would you collude when you have shared incentives? Capital is perfectly capable of shutting out smaller competitors without it, and in fact we've seen this for decades now.
