> I just do not like discrimination based on gender
if you feel that way then maybe don't drop into a conversation women started to tell them their likely misinterpreting situations and need to provide better evidence before you'll take their claims seriously. maybe don't go point-by-point refuting their experiences as conjecture then center discrimination concerns against men. maybe don't engage others who, like you, don't like discrimination based on gender with the opening line:
> People today get upset about fucking everything.
your position is the same as I stated but you have rationale behind it. I get that. the issue I have is still the same though, you're projecting your experience onto others and expecting an argument where none is being made.
as a woman in cryptocurrency, this isn't a valuable resource because it proves our work environment sucks. it's speaking to others like me who already know our work environment sucks and signals to each other so we can at least create spaces where not everything is terrible. don't think there's a problem? cool. it's not a universal experience, just common which is why you hear about it all the time. we're not looking for your help except to do your part or get out of the way.
I'm honestly taken back every time I read opinions like yours since you don't experience this, think these are claims that need evidence, and want to shut down debate over something that doesn't impact you. I can only assume you're somehow threatened but I struggle to see how. men feeling threatened by women talking about their spaces is very strange but maybe that's because you think we're saying something about you when we complain about how we're treated.
this is the most petty thing. I mean... wow. maybe care less about what other people are into? if the food you're eating doesn't taste great that's entirely on you, there are so many great food options today! I'm supposed to be upset people like to snap their meals and restaurants are working harder on presentation or mood lighting? oh no! the horrors.
I love it. so she wants to get in the way of people helping others in a risky situation but that it could cause loss of life is "not even remotely true"? it's great how we always represent ourselves in these absolutes and extremes now even though the reality is always more in the middle somewhere.
that should say "first graphical" because at the time it was pitched as the first 3D online MUD. They had to stress that internet was required because at the time even networked games didn't require internet.
I was in the beta. playing and hacking that game changed my life. it's always been a tragedy so many people didn't experience it before Asherons Call, Underlight, and EverQuest came along.
as someone who's been involved since the beginning, the only thing $100 means is there are enough people invested that the real work can begin where developers and teams can take the time to learn how to build for it without worrying it'll disappear tomorrow. that assurance counts for something, but beyond that do -not- consider this a "production ready" platform. There will be failure. There will be losses. treat this as a place to experiment and dabble in the future but don't strive for world domination, let success build naturally. fuck the hype.
if we're going to simplify language then call it what it is: a program. the only reason they're called contracts is because they were theorized within the context of future financial instruments, smart contract is a historical artifact for a kind of automated thing that might have one day appeared in many forms, but now we know. calling them programs would have been more immediately accessible to programmers which is clearly where the weight is shifting, contract should have been reserved for the DSL lawyers use to write programs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
speaking for myself it's not ever the offense I take issue with it's the ubiquity of popular offense. that every space must be a space wherein offensive speech is permitted including spaces created to cater to other genuine concerns such as recovery from debilitating trauma. churches have been a safe space for certain kinds of thought for centuries, some churches even creating a safe space within their safe space where a person can confess to any sin without suffering the adverse social affects.
it's on this point that I think people lose their minds. the vulnerable see a world completely set against them and have no ability to create an island for themselves so they over react and become militant with time as popular social movements continually fail to understand them. I see wrong on both ends for different reasons but in a hyper connected world where everything is happening all the time, the marginalized by definition must lose out. the freedom to offend is not the only attribute worth protecting, despite how very serious our history teaches us otherwise. the world isn't just becoming smaller, it's becoming flat, and that is another dimension worth pushing against.
there are no easy positions to take here. there are no obvious answers. defending free speech is obvious and good and I'm in favor of erring on the side of caution but the longer people take a principled stand on offense and dismiss the motivations of the people pushing against it, the further this situation will deteriorate.
you have to look at the full precedent though which is that forks can be used to keep a chain nimble and if you do disagree with where the majority goes you can still use the unaffected chain with others who feel the same. I don't mean to downplay, there are very serious effects that come from unforeseen forks and they should be avoided, but the dogmatic view just doesn't hold any weight with me anymore. Bitcoin will fork eventually. It's mostly fear and apprehension that has kept it where it is.
forks are part of the protocol but the vast majority of them are tossed away due to the miner incentives to stick with the most popular chain. a hard fork happens when there's either a widespread bug that conflicts with older/other clients -OR- when there's a consensus failure in the population using the chain.
in The DAO's case, there was a consensus failure in the population but the majority decided to go along with a recovery. There were good reasons to go either way but most people decided this was an experiment, it's early stage, and a move to PoS would be more difficult with a wealthy attacker. I invested but did not want to fork because I was willing to take on the risks. I lost out but I still stick with the main chain because what matters is where we're going with this not where we are. It was a valuable lesson for the community, devs have heavily stepped up investment in security and stability, I doubt anything like it will happen again as even those who were in favor now understand the damaging effects it can have.
still, if you look at the effects it's pretty interesting. You now have ETC and ETH and the market caps for each have waved to reflect the interest in the two competing ideologies. this means blockchains resolve failure through replication and the social effects that happen after can retroactively decide who the winner is or, as it is in this case, you now have two compatible technologies going different directions. ETC is staying PoW, ETH is moving to PoS, both have different governance attitudes and the split has been mostly amicable. not too bad.
edit- I should note this is also true of Bitcoin. the only reason it hasn't split is because its miner and user culture strictly adhere to immutability. if the population decided immutability didn't matter, it wouldn't. there are points of resistance to push back on the way people are but ultimately these things don't run themselves. they depend heavily on incentives.
So this sort of thing for women in tech isn't going too far if a similar thing is happening to coal miners very specifically in the US? Where was this going?
I quit my job because I loved what I was doing with ethereum. You can say you dislike something without saying everything behind it is without merit, to put your words kindly. There are interesting ideas coming from regular people who care about different things while you're focusing on one element.
if you feel that way then maybe don't drop into a conversation women started to tell them their likely misinterpreting situations and need to provide better evidence before you'll take their claims seriously. maybe don't go point-by-point refuting their experiences as conjecture then center discrimination concerns against men. maybe don't engage others who, like you, don't like discrimination based on gender with the opening line:
> People today get upset about fucking everything.