Thank you for explaining. I never understood the aggregation of donations process.
Maybe a majority of their customers are paying $1 to 1 person?
Are there really people that give away x $1/month to multiple random internet folks? I don't get it.
Hi, I pay $1-$3 to about 10 creators, plus some higher pledges.
A $1 pledge, to me, is a way to say "I enjoy your content. I want you to keep doing it, instead of needing to quit and get a 'real job'. And I use adblock so you aren't otherwise getting any benefit from my enjoyment.". When 1000s of other people make the same $1/mo decision as me, the creator has a stable income, and they create more and better content, which is good for me.
I like to listen to podcasts a lot, which is pretty common. Typically I'm going to consume a fair number of individual podcast episodes during a month, but they're all from a wide variety of podcast creators, many of whom I'd like to support on Patreon. I'm not going to pledge $10 to every single podcast I listen to, because then I'm paying hundreds of dollars a month for podcasts. I also don't want to send a bunch of money to just one among the many podcasts I like. I'd like to spread out my support across the different content creators, each of which I feel has given me something of value.
Uh that's the point of Patreon. I like a newsletter, I give them a buck a month, it's a popular newsletter, so it's not unreasonable to say if only a few thousand people give just a buck then the guy has made a living out of the newsletter. And so on. When throwing in a buck I am like "surely there are many others, hopefully this stays alive but oh well if not".
When throwing in five bucks or more especially per creation I am like "you are one of my favorite musicians please give us more" (and then I put in Taylor Davis' Carol Of The Bells and just feel good).
I feel you should have more empathy for people that do not look like you.
For some people, race, fighting for for recognition, let alone equality, is a daily battle. You may live and work far from this conflict, but it exists, and in some part the diversity modifiers for emoji provide folks with empowerment. Don't take that away over limitations in the spec.
There are billions now who own smart phones, and want that funny Japanese Telco encoding standard to reflect their world too.
This is not a technical or standards problem, and the fitzpatrick modifiers do not decrease functionality of unicode.
I feel my point is to chill, and consider how functionality outside your perceived value might bring others joy.
> I feel you should have more empathy for people that do not look like you.
Quite literally nobody has bright yellow skin. Emoji are not human beings, they are エモ → e-mo → emotion 字 → ji → characters (update: apparently I've been misled, but not in a way which changes my point, see reply below). The codepoints do not contain, have never contained, and will never contain a racial identity. They are an abstract representation of universal human emotions, just as generic as single-line ASCII emoticons.
Nobody's racial identity was represented by Unicode emoji faces to begin with, and certainly nobody any less than me.
Actually, "emoji" is 絵[e] (picture) + 文字[moji] (character). A lot of them do not represent emotions, but just random pictograms. In my opinion while encoding pictures as text was a good idea at the time (due to limitations of mobile text messages), it makes no sense in 2017 where we have technology to easily inline any picture in the text even on mobile phones.
> Actually, "emoji" is 絵[e] (picture) + 文字[moji] (character). A lot of them do not represent emotions, but just random pictograms.
Thanks, I really do wonder why people lie to me or make things up. I guess that's what I get for never typing it into my IME in full.
> In my opinion while encoding pictures as text was a good idea at the time (due to limitations of mobile text messages), it makes no sense in 2017 where we have technology to easily inline any picture in the text even on mobile phones.
Even at the time, the character set was apparently meant to replace common phrases and text emoticons (for SMS, as you note). There's frankly no way anyone would have the time and energy to produce high quality custom images for simple messages, save for selfies.
It's not hard to imagine people making that assumption, as it is reasonable if not correct, particularly as "emoticons" and "emoji" are often used to describe the same or similar non-character glyphs. There's no need to assume bad faith on others, any more than it would be to assume ill on your part for repeating it without confirming it.
Well, I suppose the fault is shared, but it was told to me confidently enough by somebody I would generally trust in these matters. I'm not throwing any particular person under the bus here, so I think I can be as emphatic as I'd like.
Well, it is technologically possible yes, but we as humans often make the compromise for practicality and communication. Perhaps there are better tuned parameter glyphs that represent screens. ️
>For some people, race, fighting for for recognition, let alone equality, is a daily battle. You may live and work far from this conflict, but it exists, and in some part the diversity modifiers for emoji provide folks with empowerment.
Have you ever considered how condescending it is to these people to say that white people need to be the ones to give these people the ability to "reflect their world" via technology by encoding things relevant to other groups of people in the specifications they write? Why don't these people "fighting for recognition" write their specifications, and their own software? Making white people do it for them cannot be empowerment - it's charity, and with that charity comes dependence, which is the exact opposite of "empowerment". The only real empowerment comes from the self, not by other people deigning to give you things for free so their peers will think more highly of them.
So read what you wrote and take note that you've implicitly assumed that Unicode and so on are strictly a product of "white people", a ridiculous notion.
I bought a kit and then never used it because of all the detailed info they required in order to create a profile and the risk you reference. Wasted $$, but still feel like I dodged a bullet by not submitting. Could have created a fake profile and lied on questions, but that didn't seem like a good enough protection. It wouldn't be too hard for a nefarious party to link the results back to me.
> 23andME HAS handed your most personal data over to the authorities.
Now just wait for some strange shift in power. I hope I do not wake up in ten years, leave my house and am welcomed by the authorities (maybe the Evocops), because my subpar DNA didn't pass some unit test.
So if there are genetic roundups, why wouldn't they be accompanied by compulsory testing?
It's pretty much the same story with milder stuff like insurance. If companies can make money by offering discounts for people with genes they like, the insurance company not having your DNA isn't going to make your insurance any cheaper. Or employment, enough people will share their DNA that it becomes a necessary step towards getting the job.
The consequences all flow from allowing society to become hell, not from sharing the DNA.
Authorities === police, and other government agencies.
What could they do with this information that makes it so bad? Well, they could do something like familial searching, which seeks to identify the last name of potential suspects through a DNA analysis focusing on the Y chromosome. And a "promising" match from someone who donated their genetic info, could lead to your wrongful arrest... Don't think it could happen, try it already has
Well that is unsettling. In the article you linked it sounds like Ancestry.com was responsible for working with the police. 23andMe seems to have a better track record on privacy and claims to have resisted requests from law enforcement so far. But I agree that it's not ideal that law enforcement can even make these requests. People should be able to check their genetic health and not have to worry about being wrongfully placed at a crime scene.
I use Google for email, I have an Amazon Echo, and I'm thinking about trying 23andMe. The best case scenario is that I get utility or enjoyment out of these things. The worst case scenario is... what? What would you say the likely outcome is? Do you think I will regret having an Echo one day?
> Do you think I will regret having an Echo one day?
Certainly some people have. A court case recently had Amazon turn over Echo recordings.
Similarly, your DNA could be used to place you in relation to a crime scene whether you committed that crime or not. I certainly don't want someone I bumped into earlier to have my DNA on them when their body is found if my DNA is trivially searchable. I'd much rather have them need to go through me and my lawyer before any of that is possible.
The likelihood of either of those scenarios is pretty tiny. The value of DNA sequencing and virtual assistants is real and substantial.
I don't like the better-safe-than-sorry argument when it comes to security. I think it leads to bad policy and bad decisions. I've been thinking about this after I read a story[1] about a family that has been told that they cannot let their young kids ride a city bus by themselves. It's a similar argument - the value of kids gaining independence is big and the risk of something atrocious happening is tiny.
It's not "better-safe-than-sorry", but a simple cost-benefit analysis of the risks and stakes presented.
Depends on your lifestyle and how valuable you think these things are, but I find these things almost entirely valueless. I think virtual assistants are basically total trash - I can type my query on my damn phone faster and more accurately than the Echo or Google can get it - and I just see no value in DNA sequencing unless you're looking for a specific medical condition, the fluffy interest in stuff like racial makeup just seems like a shitty trade-off to me.
A bad policy can be undone, publishing data can not. So I understand people want to play it safe more so on the later one.
Also keep in mind that with DNA you are not just making the decision for yourself. Your relatives share significant parts of your DNA, thus the potential risks will affect your brothers kids /etc as well. Consider asking their opinion / getting their consent.
I'm willing to tolerate a pretty high level of risk. I either drive my car or ride my bicycle to work 5 days a week. I've gone scuba diving before. I rode a motorcycle for 30 years (I just sold it). I occasionally eat fast food. Crazy, right?
For 23andMe, do you know of some ways that people have actually been harmed by their test results? I wonder what percentage of their customers regret signing up?
That's a good point. I've been under this type of surveillance for quite a while now and as far as I know, there haven't been any negative consequences for me.
Most contrarians here quote nightmare/slippery slope scenarios as to why you don't want it, but in reality, you're more likely to be negatively affected by slipping in the shower.
I doubt most of the people intentionally avoiding Alexas and 23andMe also have shower pads that help prevent slipping. This is why I think most of this anxiety comes down to some combination of neo- & techno-phobia, like we saw with GMO crops.
for some people: health fear > privacy fear. Wait until you get a little older, and things start going wrong with your body, you'll start doing all sort of crazy stuff that you wouldn't think about in your twenties, like stop drinking beer.
So why not just use fiat? Coinbase used to offer this service, where you would 'auto-topup' your balance, but removed this because it was silly as it generated multiple tx's just to do what paying in fiat would achieve in the first place.
As time goes on, the notion that coffee or meals are suitable to be paid in bitcoin seems more absurd. You would no more pay for a meal with a gold bar than you would with a Krugerrand. It will be seen as decadent for all those pizzas, controlled substances and ransoms to have been paid in BTC -- a kings ransom for pizza?
Bitcoin will likely never be a general purpose payment network. Lightning MAY if it obtains support from legacy services like VISA and MASTERCARD. I suspect V/MC will be the lightning nodes with the most payment channel volume.
Wishful thinking. This will probably not, in the short term, add sanity. It will, however, provide a buying opportunity for a week/month perhaps.
China will make some announcement in the future that softens or reverses this one, and we'll see a spike in crypto prices.
Hopefully there will be some sane regulation (or at least guidance) on ICOs to make it more difficult for scammy types to use ICOs as tools to bilk unsaavy "investors" (which includes most humans).
The dangers of tx replay mean that HF's like this can never be safe.
Beware those that would tell you that these forks are safe, they are not.
This is another scam from those that would try to usurp the blockchain.
You will be able to replay original bitcoin and abc tx's on each chain, unless you opt-in to some funny new untesed hash.
This will hugely disrupt the minority chain ABC, as the mempools on cash chain fill with other valid tx's from main chain.
Its going to be a bloodbath. Steer very clear!
Bitcoin Cash (aka Bitcoin ABC aka UAHF) provides two methods of replay protection, both of which are opt in. If you do not create transactions which use these features, then your transactions are vulnerable to replay.
The first method is a redefined sighashing algorithm which is basically the same as the one specified by BIP 143. This sighash algorithm is only used when the sighash flag has bit 6 set. These transactions would be invalid on the non-UAHF chain as the different sighashing algorithm will result in invalid transactions. This means that in order to use this, you will need to transact on the UAHF chain first and then on the non-UAHF chain second.
The second method uses an OP_RETURN output which has the exact string:
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
as the data of the OP_RETURN. Any transaction which contains this string will be considered invalid by UAHF nodes until block 530,000. This means that prior to block 530,000, you can split your coins by transacting on the non-UAHF chain first with the OP_RETURN output, and then transacting on the UAHF chain second.
So the answer is that if you spend a transaction on Core, yes, it can be stolen on the BCC chain.
Your core chain coins aren't stolen, though.
But it is safe on the BCC chain. The only people who get screwed are the main chain people, and NOT the BCC chain supporters/users.
So it is actually the opposite of what the original comment was claiming. It is MORE safe to be on the BCC chain, and LESS safe on the main chain, because the protection is 1 way.
Also, apparent segwit is not going to be activated on it, so that means that main chain segwit transactions can be stolen.
This is actually really clever, and is borderline adversarial development.
What this means is that miners on the BCC chain will be able to steal coins from segwit transactions on the main chain, and thus this would strongly incentivize BCC mining, while screwing over segwit supporters.
The people who it is "unsafe" for is Core and Segwit supporters, lol!
> The only people who get screwed are the main chain people, and NOT the BCC chain supporters/users.
Sounds like definitely adversarial behavior to me, not "borderline". They have the opportunity to write secure opt-out (on-by-default) replay protection-- like by choosing a new address prefix (etc)--, and they choose not to.
Your "steal segwit coins" scenario wont work when the transaction tree is tainted by post-fork coinbase outputs.
Hmm? The steal segwit coins senario would work as follows:
1. Person A does a segwit transaction and sends coins to the anyone-can-spend output on the main chain. These coins aren't really "anyone can spend" because segwit stops invalid transactions.
2. The transaction gets replayed on the BCC chain. Segwit transactions work by sending via the anyone can spend output, but since segwit is not activated on BCC, the thefts aren't blocked, and any-can-spend really DOES mean anyone-can-spend instead of meaning segwit.
Or am I misinterpreting how it works?
I thought that segwit uses the anyone-can-spend output in order to be backwards compatible. That means that legacy nodes, or unupgraded nodes that don't have segwit, are perfectly fine will "theft" transactions.
A legacy fork, that does not have segwit activated, would thus be able to replay segwit transactions, but instead of being segwit transactions they would just be normal, anyone can spend transactions that can be stolen.
Anyways, yeah it is adversarial development.
But the other side was planning on doing the same kind of stuff, with User Activated Soft Fork, and POW changes. User activated soft fork threatens the other side with theft by doing a Wipeout of the other chain.
This stuff could have been solved much earlier if Core just compromised and merged the 4MB blocksize increase.
I had mentioned specifically post-fork coinbase output taint; if it's tainted, there's no way to replay, that's in fact one of the proposed replay protection mechanisms (unfortunately it's of the "opt-in" variety).
Ahh, yeah, of course. If you taint it. But if you don't taint and don't opt in, then it can be stolen.
So yes, if you are on the Core chain, you can protect against replay, but only if you opt in. If you don't opt in, then they can be stolen on the other chain.
> Sounds like definitely adversarial behavior to me, not "borderline". They have the opportunity to write secure opt-out (on-by-default) replay protection-- like by choosing a new address prefix (etc)--, and they choose not to.
