IMO it's not the 8 hours that's required, it's deep sleep, that's what really rests you. I got 7.5hrs the other night, with 1hr of Deep Sleep and I actually felt like I was on the verge of death, whereas other nights on 6hrs with 3hrs deep, and I feel great. I think sleep is a quality over quantity type deal. Obviously this all personal observation, I just pay attention and write shit down, I don't have a PhD lol.
> Because we do not want the union "benefits" that aren't really benefits.
"The union protects and improves Members' wages and conditions. Our successful bargaining campaigns continue to deliver fair wages and better conditions like superannuation, site allowances, redundancy pay and income protection. In the year 2000 this branch of the CFMEU won the 36 hour week, giving workers 26 paid days off a year."
Also get 5% YOY pay rises, which allows wages to stay in line with inflation instead of stagnating. You're being naive with your comments IMO, ignoring the reality of the matter and trying to pitch us into a "everyone's different and should be able to negotiate" which has been shown to be damaging. How much data do you need to see about stagnating wage growth and consistently growing executive wages to see that this "we don't need unions" argument is ignorant of the truth?
> We do not want another group controlling our workplace or forcing us into horrible, one size fits all, collective bargaining agreements. We want to be allowed to negotiate for ourselves.
You can believe what you want, you do realise that most of them don't FORCE you to join, but you will likely just be treated like a leech, which is appropriate.
Please provide some data for your claims because I'm straight up gonna say you're wrong on the majority of your points.
> We believe that it is very much in the self interest of workers to prevent unions from destroying our industry with overbearing rules and regulations that prevent us from doing our job.
This one (and a few of your other comments strike a nerve) because I think that you have the entire purpose of unions confused, unions are there to provide workers, me and you, your parents, normal non-1%ers, an opportunity to get a fairer distribution of the pie, not ALL of the pie, just what is fair. If you actually provided some concrete examples of industries where you don't think the unions should be, I could have easily pulled data up on their profits, compared it to their workers wages, and it would be a lot easier to make the point that most companies can afford to pay workers better wages, which is a win-win for everyone, the idea that if I work at McDonalds, and am an enterprising individual, and ask for a pay rise vs my other workers, is laughable, why would they bother? They've crushed dissenters, and now because of the shit conditions you work in, they'll just fire you and grab someone who doesn't ask for better conditions. It's an incentive disparity, companies have no interest in paying workers more.
Here's a good one, ITT they acknowledged that they understaff consistently and expect workers to be able to work their rest days so they can keep staffing requirements low. Then naturally, it's the workers fault when they actually take their rest days.
Man, the more I read this comment, the more I think you're just trolling.
And in response to his fallacious proclamations that Blockstream controls core.
git shortlog -sn
4982 Wladimir J. van der Laan = Non-Blockstream
1446 Pieter Wuille = Blockstream
1101 Gavin Andresen = Non-Blockstream
639 Philip Kaufmann - Unsure
633 MarcoFalke - Non-Blockstream
559 Matt Corallo - Non-Blockstream
551 Cory Fields - Unsure
533 Jeff Garzik - Non-Blockstream
520 Jonas Schnelli - Non-Blockstream
330 Luke Dashjr - Blockstream
261 Gregory Maxwell - Blockstream
245 s_nakamoto - lol
208 Alex Morcos - Non-Blockstream
208 John Newbery - Non-Blockstream
197 Suhas Daftuar
131 practicalswift
113 Russell Yanofsky
113 fanquake
102 Peter Todd
95 Pavel Janík
86 Jorge Timón
74 Michael Ford
74 jtimon
70 Cozz Lovan
50 Patrick Strateman
40 Andrew Chow
36 João Barbosa
35 R E Broadley
34 Giel van Schijndel
32 BtcDrak
32 Eric Lombrozo
31 Daniel Kraft
30 Jeremy Rubin
29 Karl-Johan Alm
29 Nils Schneider
28 Gregory Sanders
27 Chris Moore
26 Satoshi Nakamoto
26 sirius-m
23 Johnson Lau
23 MeshCollider
23 instagibbs
21 Micha
20 dexX7
19 Warren Togami
19 gavinandresen
19 tcatm
Sorry if I didn't do them all, you're getting the idea, as you go further down the list the impact of the organisation backing them inevitably goes down.
Whilst I would usually agree with you, your comments about being a conspiracy theorist are IMO entirely wrong, look at the history of the account, the lifespan of it, and the threads it posts on. I agree that ad hominem is incorrect and pretty much always a bad way to argue, but you need to have some idea of context and the active measures that have recently been taken in this scaling "debate", there is straight up disinformation being circulated.
As far as I'm concerned, I did give facts, the segwit facts are correct. The loss of business is fact. The comment about chain rewards decreasing is fact.
Mate, please, stop with the Blockstream FUD. Blockstream make up only 20% of commits on Bitcoin. Find another strawman.
There is not a 1MB limit, the limit was lifted with the implementation of segwit, as it changed the counting mechanism to weight instead of size, as a result, you can now push upto 3.7MB worth of tx into a block.
Your proposition is wrong and people like you who constantly spout it should be called out and shamed like the fucking charlatans that you are. Blockstream has no financial interest in having Segwit, LN or anything else implemented. They have DEFENSIVE patents against the technology to stop trolls from holding up the development process. Please, locate yourself to Google Patents and search for Blockstream, then consult their Open Patents disclosure for further confirmation that you are wrong and have taken the bait of companies who have an interest in deriding the current decisions of Core.
Core is implementing a variety of changes in the future that will put many businesses against Core out of business.
Cross chain atomic swaps = exchanges
More private transactions = anyone doing blockchain analysis (lolgarzik)
Lightning Network = miners and anyone who processes transactions.
The most painful part of your opinion is that you can't extrapolate network rules and see that in the next 2 years, rewards are going to half, meaning that if we drop TX fees now, it will make it even harder to pull miners back. By implementing a simple situation for on-chain settlement, miners still make decent returns down the line.
Please, if you have any interest in Bitcoin, and have any decent brain about you, call people like this out for being the corporate sockpuppets they really are.
And what incentive do collective groups have to do that? I struggle to understand why people would act against their own self-interests to undermine their own rights and pay. Did you know that global wage growth is being outstripped by inflation?
What good does crippling unions do? You think it's useful for large portions of the community to be on stifled wages and bad working conditions?
Unions are less powerful in the US because the US has a broken system where those with money have more votes than those with less? There is a financial interest in having the
"mere peons" on less cash because it results in a better balance sheet situation for executives and share holders, resulting in better EOY dividends and better bonuses.
I support Unions because of people like you, because for some fucking unknown reason, people like you believe that some are entitled to less because they are employed in xxxx profession or don't have xxxx degree.
The fundamental problem is that unions are REQUIRED, if there was a bigger sense of social responsibilty, people would get paid decent living wages and wouldn't be worked in horrendously dangerous conditions dealing with power brokers whose only interest is their own portfolio value.
Please, get away from the trickle down economics bullshit and come back to the real world. How much evidence of corporate malfeasance do you have to see on a daily basis before realising that protecting the rights of the 99% is not only a good economic decision, but also a humane one.
""[..] I personally have zero desire to work in a union or be forced to be in one."
I'm going to speculate that's only because you have good working conditions."
I have noticed (personal anecdote here so yeah not great) that a large majority of people that I know against unions have never worked in dangerous fields, office workers are ridiculously ignorant as to the workplace dangers of many unionised industries.
Because it doesn't work like that, you can't deny the benefits, the way they work (in Aus, it will be similar elsewhere) is with EBA (Enterprise Bargaining Agreements). Basically, the union will go into talks with companies, agree on conditions and then they will be spread out as an effective handshake rule across the industry. The union act as mitigators between businesses and workers, which pretty much changes the entire industry. So you can't really opt out. Unless of course you go and work for companies who don't sign the EBA's, and having worked in Construction before, the majority of these companies have malicious reasons for not signing, and you wouldn't want to work for them. I've seen a handful of people try to not pay dues, and it's pretty much always because they just don't want to pay money, whilst still pulling the benefits.
However this hardly makes it ok to continue this sort of behaviour, the top boys manage to wrangle huge bonuses, yet when a group of workers asks for 5% per year, they're a bunch of monsters.
The majority of countries are already enacting laws/frameworks/technology that would help eventually outlaw this sort of behaviour, perhaps not explicitly, but many times implicitly. For example in Australia the govt is looking to push facial recognition cameras into public places and "only use them for serious crimes where the sentence is 3 years or more". What they fail to tell you is that in Aus, public disturbance carries something like 5 years, so now there's the very legitimate worry that facial recognition could be used on people fighting for their rights and showing support. Used the Aus example because the two countries are fairly similar law wise, and with their surveillance stances.
This. I have been staunch anti-social media for a while now, but not long ago I heard someone from a community I'm involved in say that the conversation on twitter was actually pretty intelligent so I signed up. You hear about how it's good to use these sites because you occasionally get pearls of wisdom, Nassim Taleb (funny because he actually has a twitter account) referred to it as digging through mountains of shit to find diamonds, sure, you may find a diamond, but you'll also be covered in shit.
EDIT: Deleted my twitter account after a month, wanna nerf LinkedIn as well but that decision has professional impacts.
Yeah after re-reading this thread I think I've properly gone off the deep end with this one, I've probably misread your initial comment, I think, sorry if I did.
I'm asking him to back his opinion up because his question was a loaded question:
Question: "Why not just use another crypto-currency?"
Load Question: "Why not just use a crypto-currency that isn't clogged by developers trying to make people use their proprietary service?"
He is applying bias to it from the get go, your comment is a bit strange, asking a question doesn't exempt you from asking honest questions that aren't loaded, you don't enter some realm of sanctity just because you're asking a question. You can ask for further clarity as to what the person is asking before answering it.
Please explain your statement in detail with sources and facts please, I'm sure I know what you're trying to insinuate so I'm going to ask you to back your claims up with some truth.
Please don't start on the "Vision" rhetoric, look at the pipeline of core, there is a clear path to VISA scale tx but it is an engineering challenge, unfortunately the majority of people complaining and talking about scaling blocksize (right now, with a terrible straight-up hard-fork) are (bad) Operations people who are more than happy to shitcan half the benefits of a decentralised, privacy focused system for a frankenstein system that in reality still won't compete with VISA. Protip, if you're competing against a behemoth incumbent, it's not enough to simply match their capabilities, you have to surpass them. Lightning network fees will be cheaper than VISA, a lot cheaper. Scaling a $120b financial network on a whim without a real engineering team is not only a bad idea, it's downright fucking deplorable to put users at risk.
Well you can, as was discovered in the Haim Bodek HFT shit storm.