This is going to be a tough sell to the significant percentage of US Congresspeople who vocally support a man who currently vocally supports Putin's actions.
The UK government did not like that study, because it showed that many illegal drugs were ultimately much less overall harm to society (the direct users as well as those around them and the healthcare system) than alcohol.
If you want no misunderstandings, be explicit. This applies to YAML and life in general. There's an annoying but fairly accurate saying about assumptions that applies.
If you want something to be a specific type, you better have an explicit way of indicating that. If you say quotes will always indicate a string, great. Of course we know it's not that simple, since there are character sets to consider.
The safest answer is to do something like XML with DTDs. But that imposes a LOT of overhead. Naturally we hate that, so we make some "convention over configuration" choices. But eventually, we hit a point where the invisible magic bites us.
This is one case where tests would catch the problem, if those tests are thorough enough - explicitly testing every possibility or better yet, generative testing.
I originally followed your link on your website, which opened App Store and gave me that notice about it not being available in this country.
However, now I just opened App Store, searched for "angeldust", and bought it for less than 5€... so clearly it is available.
So it has something to do with the path a user takes from the link on your website thru the Apple dialog that asks where to open the link [App Store], etc.
"In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right."
And later, a clarification:
"the requisite elements of fraud as a tort generally are the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim."
By your definitions, most businesses would be committing "fraud". Many, many, many companies have multiple emails, multiple phone numbers, even multiple mailing boxes that may all be handled by one person but which serve to filter and separate incoming contacts and certainly also present a level of professionalism that some customers find comforting.
And what about companies that have the same service but present it differently (to look niche or specific) to different audiences via different websites? Are they being fraudulent by making their potential customers feel uniquely served?
There are so many more examples I could bring up related to marketing, presentation, etc.
These days, companies much larger than one person can shut down overnight, without warning. It happens.
Frankly, barring some accident, I'm betting the solo company is more motivated to keep things running than the larger company that might sell out to a larger rival and allow their service to be shut down or changed negatively (with little or no warning to customers).
Pretending to be a bigger company than you are is not fraud, it's perception management. Whether justified or not, many potential customers will choose a seemingly bigger company over a smaller one (especially a one-person company).
Now if they were billing based on number of people working for a client, and they were charging for phantom people, that would be fraud.
This guy just has an optimized workflow that he presents as if it were a team of people. If the customer feels that's unreasonable, they wouldn't pay. There's nothing unethical about that.
My #1 frustration is having ideas that are pretty good (I know this because I see them done by someone else within 1-5 years of me wanting to do it), but not yet knowing how to raise capital.
I see all the crazy shit like WeWork and other companies where people have millions thrown at them while never making a profit (and even actively cheating their investors). I don't want to be one of those guys, but I would like a shot at doing one of my ideas. Yes, I could work on it in my "garage" while doing my day job, but because I am so personally invested in whatever job I do, there's not a lot of me left over.
I read the article. I also looked at the transaction. But the transaction was made up of maybe two dozen input addresses, and I didn't feel like walking backwards through each of those on my phone.
My question was, has nobody walked them all back to a known address? I find it hard to believe that one of those inputs wasn't downstream of some transactions from a known address.
It's not necessary for me to explain this here, and you were being helpful to me; I'm just clarifying what my intent was with that apparently misleading? statement was.
Nah, the smarter plan is to keep the dream of bitcoin alive while you trade your bitcoin for other assets; this is how companies buy other companies with stock-only purchases.
If you’re a whale and want to someday liquidate this, ideally at higher value, you want the world to see big things like this. It will remind people that bitcoin network is still very much alive despite the repeated death sentences made by supposed financial experts.
By “unknown”, does that mean that none of the source addresses that collectively sent the sum to one address did not have previous transactions from sources that were known? I rather doubt it, unless the sources were mining wallets (which would show up as coin bases).
This is why I moved my clients off G-Suite and onto Zoho. And it's why where possible, I advise people to build clean web-based mobile apps which do not require a "store".
Since we have no practical alternative to Play Store and Apple Store for native phone apps, we'll just have to settle for slightly fewer features and slightly less performance with non-native apps. (And no, sideloading isn't an option. Most users are barely able to install a native app via a link directly to their store.)
For Google, it's simply not worth their time to maintain a staff of humans to prevent these false negatives. They are not committed to the app developers just as they are not committed to their non-government G-Suite clients. They are committed to their primary revenue streams. And the reason they can simply not care about some human losses (stories like TFA) is because they are a monopoly when it comes to Android apps. And while Amazon is not an admirable company at all (based on how it treats its sellers or low level employees), their cloud business seems to have more human oversight - or at least a less heavy-handed automated banning system.
Google's behavior will continue to be profitable enough that they won't change it... for many years, or until the regulators come at them. Since the US regulators are now almost entirely corporate lobbyists themselves, we'll have to depend on the EU to fight it. (And since the EU is becoming corporatized as well, the window of opportunity is shrinking.)
Some Netherlands internet is garbage too, even the 4G. And a whole lot of US internet is garbage.
Meanwhile, I've experienced reliable high speed (both direction) internet in Thailand and even Bali. Perhaps I got lucky, but imo there's no excuse for shit internet in US or NL (or Germany).
This is great work. I hope MS can improve Windows 10 by fixing this. I just added a new Win10 laptop with much better specs than my 3 year old rMBP, and I'm shocked by how much apparently random latency I experience with the UI in Windows 10 compared to the Mac. That's not to mention the issues of sloppier track pad (which constantly detects my left hand while I type) or the ungodly slow unzip (via 7z).
If only Apple would give us more than 16GB of RAM (in a laptop)... what a frustrating world for developers.