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.
When we follow the good suggestion, we don't suck at all. That's how humans should work.
It's when we reject the wise advice because... because we're stubborn?... that is when it sucks.
The thing about this url search is that they type the full url, sometimes even with the "http" bit (rarely https, but I digress), into the search field. then they get the results page a second or two later, and then _maybe_ they click the correct result if they didn't get mislead by some crappy SEO magic.
That's a lot of extra work just to get to hopefully arrive at the same page they would have arrived at had they typed that url into the address field.
I'm talking about people using the address bar just enough to get to google. Once they're looking at the text field where you're invited to enter your search terms, there they type in "www.whatever.com".
People go to the name they know. Since for many (most?) people, the word “google” is a verb meaning to search the web, they naturally will prefer that service even if they don’t know why it might be better than whatever is the default.
Meanwhile, it reminds me that we developers don’t understand users or don’t provide understandable interfaces for them.
Observe many people and you’ll see a maddening pattern of browser use: they will use any available method to get to google, and then they will put a url into the google search text box. Perhaps the address bar is inconveniently too high on the screen, or maybe they just don’t know what a url is.
Yes, it was normalized. It was a very comprehensive, well thought out study. Of course the researchers could still get the results they wanted by choosing which metrics to include in the comparisons, but the choices attempted to balance individual cost (physical, mental) with social (family suffering, divorce) and societal (burden on society from underperforming people, shared health costs, etc.)
The takeway was that alcohol was one of the worst, along with crack cocaine and heroin; ecstacy was really not bad, and weed was a bit worse but still nowhere near as overall costly/damaging as alcohol.
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.