Gallactide

6 tahun yang laludiscuss

Soooo google wants Autoplay ads on their sites too now!

They're not about to make their own product limit their own whims!

Gallactide

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

I mean sure, general libertarian "musings" about government=inefficient, whatever.

The actual point he is arguing is unrealistic though, what wealth tax could possibly lead to anyone being taxed 50% of all net-value!?

This family that's scrimping and saving for their 2M slice, either made that money in one fiscal year and so could arguably just be happy with any profit, or as indicated in the thesis didn't.

So sure, don't take half of everything someone has every year. Doesn't really last.

Gallactide

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

This is clickbait. The author is using a version of the term backdoor, as in an action in a cryptographic system is undertaken on behalf of a user but without that users consent, but is clearly just irate at being associated with a cryptocurrency. This is an idempotent single action, less scary, even in a secure context.

The author clearly was just momentarily angry, used some exaggerated language knowing how it would read and is now trying to stand their ground.

Closest thing to a point I see them making is that generated wallets should include an option to be removed from the attestation list, or be deleted if not wanted to begin with.

Valid (if not slightly petty) user feedback maybe, "BACKDOOR IN SECURE APP ALERT ALERT" definitely not...

Gallactide

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

This man was my professor at the VU.

Honestly his lectures were fun and easy to look forward too, I'm really glad his post is getting traction.

If you find his video lectures they are a really graceful introduction to most ML concepts.

Gallactide

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

This is an absolutely awesome reading, thanks for the upload.

Genuinely fascinating.

Gallactide

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

I'm American myself, don't mean to bag on a country, just was surprised by a few comments.

Fair enough though, didn't mean to come across as polemic/whining hahaha.

I'll try to conform to HN netiquette.

Gallactide

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

It's amazing that all US critical posts are being downvote-bombed...

Also the claim that the US is not lax in its regulation is a bad joke. Half of the parties available literally made de-regulation their damn group mantra...

Gallactide

9 tahun yang laludiscuss

I have a fundamental question about the technology.

As soon as a single centralized service such as any business accepts trust in order to facilitate payments, they are added as a link of trust no?

Wouldn't that lead to any fake account being able to simply "spend money" in order to fundamentally legitimize their Personal Coins?

Wouldn't this mean that anyone can Mint literally any amount of coin types and purchase literally anything, only for each of those currencies to gain the same global value?

EDIT: I have no issue with the Economic principle of UBI. I believe if appropriately applied it is literally the absolute final goal of any organized civilization.

EDIT 2: I am actually quite concerned about this model. Several large initiatives seem to have backed a system that not only is broken by default but literally legitimizes discrimination. I don't mean that in some whiney "everyone should be equal!!!!!" bullshitty way, but literally.

This model places the burden of trust on any acceptor of the currency, i.e. vendor/service. This means that essentially any business that IS concerned by their contribution as legitimization of so called Scammers will increase scrutiny drastically. Any orphan/Retiree/Huge segment of population of any demographic that might not have any fundamentally trusting connections are fundamentally unable to spend any amount of currency.

This would REQUIRE a form of centralized Trust which would need to be regulated in the identical way ISPs and Hosting providers handle SSL Certificates. Some form of fundamental right to trust by citizenship or other inherent association with a trusted entity simply by existing would be absolutely required. Which essentially leads to a regular currency within a few basic steps of reasoning, since eg. governments trust one another, and each of these trusts any citizen. Immediately the exact same existing financial scenario.

EDIT 3: I mean this is essentially the EXACT same model as any centralized Stock Exchange. Except instead of shares in a central service/business we get shares in individuals. Which leads to absolute nightmare scenarios where highly connected individuals are inherently more valuable and produce an equal amount of currency, however at a far higher value.

Seems familiar no? A CEO that acts as the central trust for a corporation (lets ignore the obvious issues with having a potentially temporary individual as the inherent financial representative of a registered business) would require to be trusted by all employees in order to redeem their pay checks.

Meaning that CEO can spend his personal coins at a far higher value since they are inherently trusted be a large amount of individuals. Meaning there is no UBI and everyone still has currency, except instead of being backed by the hypothetical stability of a sitting and established authoritative structure it's affected by the hilariously unstable social graph of the world.

We NEED to research systems like this, I CANNOT STATE THIS ENOUGH, but we can't let good intentions lead to an even worse scenario than our current model for fiat currency.

Gallactide

9 tahun yang laludiscuss

I've been pulling my hair out and losing sleep over a specific problem I need to solve for a client. This tool, along with the linked spaCy lib have not only reduced the complexity of the task to be manageable, have also drastically reduced the projected completion time. In other words, Holy shit thank you OP.