I know how they work and that they exist. However, I use cash as little as possible, and really don't need a cash substitute. The few times I use cash it is for small consumable purchases and things paid with a few quarters. No need for the waiting for a bitcoin transaction to clear.
There are people that prefer cash. Of those people, a large portion of them are old or luddites/anti-tech (I actually don't mean this pejoratively as I sympathize with this view), but these people probably won't be too keen on Bitcoin as a replacement. The other portion are those seemingly like yourself that are all embracing of alternative payment methods or basically e-gold. That's great, but you are a niche bunch and I assume a pretty self-selected group.
The mainstream wants convenient credit with decent consumer protections for the many advantages it brings to their boring, mainstream life. This is not ignorance.
My credit cards give me extended warranties, travel protection. I just got a courtesy credit for a purchase well outside the return window, and I just was reimbursed a few hundred bucks for a computer that failed out of warranty. Meanwhile, I have had to call the credit card company once in 5 years for an unauthorized $200 charge. And no, I was not liable for a penny of it. I don't know where you keep getting off on this $50 stuff, but it's complete nonsense. No one ever pays $50 in practice. And most cards the window is 90 days for a dispute.
Hardware wallets Do not prevent you from voluntarily giving up your money to thiefs. Social engineering doesn't go away. There are still plenty of ways to steal money from someone, whatever the form. I could always just rubberhose your wallet, is it immune to that? This is a problem with credit cards, but there is a great recourse for it.
2) No credit card I use today (and I use lots for rewards) has any term less than 90 days for dispute. Also all 3 major credit card companies offer $0 liability as part of their terms.
To your edit: Saying bitcoin solves credit card theft for good is like saying gold bars or even just cash solves credit card theft for good. News flash buddy, bitcoin is not a credit system. So it really doesn't solve shit. HN has become a shit show thanks to poorly thought out comments like yours and then the subsequent whinging.
Even forgetting the whole, how do I pay with credit issue. Your post is not terribly insightful, and the facts are thin. It removes particular problems with credit cards and replaces them with others. It doesn't solve theft where you end up (through trickery or otherwise) effectively voluntarily sending your money to a thief, because Bitcoin does not give you any way to reverse charges. It just changes the small details of theft attacks on consumer spending, it doesn't fix a god damn thing.
How does bitcoin solve credit? Last I checked, bitcoin isn't a credit platform.. So even if you want to use bitcoin... you still need a credit card.
In the US, I am basically not fully liable for any credit payment I make for 90 days. I can dispute any charge for that time and it is on the onus of the bank to do something about it or not get their money. The incentives in this case are very pro-consumer.
But let's be real, the graphics of prodigy were not really up to the task of showcasing products.
nb: the graphics of prodigy were a semi-standardized limited color pallette vector graphics system called NAPLPS. Benefit was that it was extremely low bandwidth, the limitation was that it had no way to handle bitmap graphics (like GIF). By 1994, prodigy just became an http provider (on top of the existing service).
Meh it was pretty easy. Due to the fact that there were a limited number of peripherals to begin with, getting a modem hooked up to a serial port pretty much always worked. (first one I had was an Atari XM301 in 1982). By 1991 you could buy an IBM PS/1 in any retail store with included internal 2400 bps modem for about $1200. Related to this, PS/1 models included Prodigy (the sears venture) and Promenade a short-lived effort between IBM and Quantum link (ie what became AOL).
Not really. Any idiot on the internet can put a poorly made piece of documentation for anything, as has been done here. The topic kernel development is also technically involved and frankly a very small minority of the tech world is intimately familiar with it (let alone in a position to make good use of the documentation), so it's not terribly surprising that there is some discussion over it.
Evidence of compromise (tampering, intrusion) is a major part of security. In some threat models it can be assumed to be unobtainable, but this does not support your blanket statement. Like, sorry, you're just wrong on this one.
The author (Markus Kuhn) almost certainly knows about this (I assume based on his prolificness in publishing tech documents nearly 20 years ago). But the use of grave accent is sort of a different problem since it is merely the input to the TeX language that is then properly interpreted in a correct way. I do wonder about your story of X11, since although when X11 was released in 1984 LaTeX was not a thing and TeX did not have quite the widespread usage it did through the 90s. troff also uses grave accents for what it is worth.
Erm...JSON allows whitespace last I checked. \n (ie the actual \x0a) is a whitespace character, and so can appear as a discarded token in JSON. So you would basically have to restrict to a subset of JSON -- it's not actually JSON anymore at that point.
You do realize that the politics of Rust are exclusionary. There are people, myself included, that do not want to (or risk) get wrapped up in the axle of this brand of social politics. I feel included enough in Linux kernel dev to get work done. OTOH I don't feel the need to walk on eggshells to be part of your group. Am I marginalized enough to be of particular protection (as mentioned in your coc)?
I don't know what to tell you. You can't please everyone. The rust project has the right to run it on their terms but your "inclusion" is necessarily exclusionary. Accept it and admit it. At least the kernel devs aren't blatant hypocrites on the topic.
Often is very much not the same as always. Moreover, when these optimizations are useful (i.e. Not underwhelming) the payoff is significant (like multiple orders of magnitude significant). Additionally crypto is special due to side channel issues of course. Anyway most compilers are generally shit at vectorization generally.
No it's not the brightness per se. What you perceive as "brightness" is the intensity of the part of the spectrum that is visible to you. But plenty of the non-visible spectrum has physiological effects, the infrared and UV spectrum. Most of the acute damage from the eclipse and the sun to eyes is not from UV as commonly believed but from the intensity of infrared that your eyes don't detect as "bright" but will cook them right well.
This is also why even relativlity low intensity infrared lasers are so dangerous.
That is indeed the argument and I don't think it is necessarily a bad one.
Academic papers are both jargony and written in specialist notation and are not generally accessible to lay people without background in the field. I don't see how it is really much different.
> SVG graphics are clean, result in NO blur at all. They don't even need any Truetype-style hinting. You've probably looked only at early non-conforming implementations using bad approximations.
This huge wall of text but apparently you don't understand the subject matter all that deeply. Why wouldn't SVG need hinting? Truetype needs hinting and it's a vector format as well.
Don't forget better UX. The whole practice of UX is utter hogwash. Comparisons between 3 or 4 (or 100) solutions that are shitty at baseline is not honest at all.
I have NEXUS and I agree it is worth it. But the relevant question is that TSA pre is not difficult to get. If someone (US citizen or PR with relatively clean record) wants to blow up a plane with themselves on it then I don't see how TSA pre stops them.
Yes, all you're saying is it is possible to make shitty native apps too. So that would explain your results. Native isn't a magic wand, but except for the simplest of things web will not be as good. The cracks still show in things like Google docs and sheets and overall those are pretty good as far as web goes.
There are people that prefer cash. Of those people, a large portion of them are old or luddites/anti-tech (I actually don't mean this pejoratively as I sympathize with this view), but these people probably won't be too keen on Bitcoin as a replacement. The other portion are those seemingly like yourself that are all embracing of alternative payment methods or basically e-gold. That's great, but you are a niche bunch and I assume a pretty self-selected group.
The mainstream wants convenient credit with decent consumer protections for the many advantages it brings to their boring, mainstream life. This is not ignorance.
My credit cards give me extended warranties, travel protection. I just got a courtesy credit for a purchase well outside the return window, and I just was reimbursed a few hundred bucks for a computer that failed out of warranty. Meanwhile, I have had to call the credit card company once in 5 years for an unauthorized $200 charge. And no, I was not liable for a penny of it. I don't know where you keep getting off on this $50 stuff, but it's complete nonsense. No one ever pays $50 in practice. And most cards the window is 90 days for a dispute.