I doubt they are doing it. You just have to get on a VPN to and see yourself being flooded with captchas despite browsing the web like a normal human and solving dozens of captchas along the way.
I wonder if the same can happen from dental implants. While not subject to the same levels of mechanical stress, the mouth can be a very acidic environment which can be corrosive to metals.
I think they're more talking about systemic effects resulting from such a concept. When you have unchecked power concentrated at a single position, that position will inevitably use that power for their own personal gain, which in the case of pardons happens by enabling crime.
The problems with social networks is pretty widely understood. Simply acknowledging them as problems, with a promise to tackle, is not enough to attract people imo. It would help to go into detail how exactly you propose to solve them, what is it you would do different where others have tried and failed?
Why content-addressed storage? I'm assuming this is mostly for auditability after the fact? Wouldn't it make sense to use some business identifier to be able to refer it back easily?
Money in this context is just proxy for value. You have exchanged cash for an equal value of stock. After this either could go up or down in value as the market determines. Sometimes the market doesn't like one kind of cash even and that value can reduce. On the other hand, if everyone is invested into a certain kind of cash then it's unlikely that cash would ever lose its value. Stocks have to work the same way fundamentally. The difference so far has been the volume at which these transactions happen. But since 2008, the volume of stock transactions has been growing exponentially. Has it crossed a critical mass ensuring its value will be propped up for a really long time?
All these media people who write about markets need to adjust their perspectives on what a sell-off means. A 2% reduction for a market cap of 80 trillion dollars still leaves about 78 trillion dollars in the market. The way the market behaves when there's 78 trillion dollars would be very different from how it would if there were 20 trillion dollars. With volumes of these kind, the instrument becomes a currency in itself causing a sort of runaway effect that will keep it going. When everyone's money is in the market, would the market ever fall?
Astroturfing is the biggest problem for online forums now. Bots can hide behind residential IPs and AI can generate tonnes of innocuous slop to overwhelm all other content. No human moderation will be able to keep up with it. Anyone building an online forum should think hard about this, I don't think it'll be easy to solve.
I think you misread my comment, I might've been lazy in constructing it. I don't mean to mentor anyone, rather I'm putting out my read of the situation so there's a common ground over which to discuss.
For me, raising $100m when it's not needed doesn't add up. Nobody lends money with the idea to "keep it, just in case". There are always commitments and expectations and obligations to meet those expectations. So when they said they didn't really need to raise, while also not talking about investor expectations, feels there's more to the situation than is being let on.
> We don't need venture dollars to continue scaling (indeed the business is healthy) but you know when you don't want to raise $100m? When you really need it!
That's a nice narrative but I suspect you're not touching upon the investor pressure side of things. Your earlier investors would be upon you to show a multiple in valuation beyond what the balance sheets can show. The only way to do that is to raise more money.
The problem with this is that you're now beholden to another set of investors who will also expect a multiple on their investment which makes increasing valuation your primary objective, even to the detriment of the business. With a margin business you could sustain for a long time even when the market stagnates, but you've lost that option when you first took money from someone. It's an all or nothing play now.
This was a great read unfortunately tainted by horrible graphics. If the publisher is reading this, please consider this feedback.
1. Animations are meant to distract by design, and putting them where someone is deeply engrossed in the article, disengages from whatever you're reading and breaks the flow.
2. Scrolling animations are fine for non-functional elements like intros, but I couldn't get all the folders open easily and have to fiddle around with the scroll to be able to see the artifacts.
3. Probably the worst of all, I was acutely aware of the main logo altering (someone took their name too seriously) constantly in the corner of my eye. This was so jarring, I found myself hurrying up to finish the article.
4. Twice my browser tab crashed on this page. While not strictly a design consideration, more moving parts means more chances of something breaking. Do you want to compromise the article because some graphics didn't work?
The article itself was really good. Very informative and interesting. I wanted to sit down and take it in leisurely, but the graphics were annoying to such an extent I found myself hurrying to finish it up.
But I do understand this can be a very polarizing opinion. There are probably people who absolutely loved the graphics and for whom it added to the experience. But I'm also sure there are people for whom it was nothing but a deterrent. The best approach in such a case is graceful degradation. Allow people who can't stand animations and effects to turn them off and gracefully degrade your page to retain all the functional aspects and still present your core content.
A wealth tax than caps one's inflow to something like a million a year makes a lot of sense. To all the billionaire sympathizers who worry about incentives and technological progress, this here is a perfect (and not the only) example of how intrinsic motivation can beat extrinsic motivation by a huge margin.
There will always be people who value intrinsic incentives and even more so when there is a lack or limitation of extrinsic ones. Society will do well to structure itself primarily around such people. Such people are also less likely to cause damage to others because it's very rare that damage to others fulfills one's intrinsic needs. Linus is arguably a net positive to human society than the top 20 billionaires combined. We need more of him and less of the others.
As long as the foreign companies operate within the country under the country's laws, it shouldn't be a big problem. But being dependent on only one vendor and not having redundancy in the system is a problem though. This is why cash is important to provide the ultimate redundancy against all technological and infrastructural failures.