skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is like saying incandescent light bulbs should be banned. Sure, it’s a sensible thing to say once you have unilaterally-better bulbs already fully commercialized and in mass production. (And this happened with CFLs and then LED bulbs; and then we did ban incandescents, here in Canada and in many other places.)

But we’re not at that “fully commercialized and in mass production” inflection point yet with Proof-of-Stake networks. They exist, but none have the transaction load (and thus the network build-out to absorb the transaction load) that Bitcoin has.

Forcing a switch to PoS now, would be like trying to force a switch to CFLs or LED bulbs only a year or two after they were invented. What would you imagine would happen as a result? The incandescent manufacturers would go out of business, and the CFL/LED manufacturers wouldn’t yet have been able to absorb the demand. Nobody would be able to buy lightbulbs. This kind of a ban is effectively just demanding to kill the sector as a whole.

Once an old technology is on its way out in the market anyway — and it’s only stubborn locked-in enterprise hold-outs, rather than greenfield adoption, continuing the relevance of the old tech — then it can be banned, to force those enterprise hold-outs to switch over to the new tech. That’s entirely appropriate. But the market knows when tech is mature, and the market itself switches over when that happens. Trying to force the market is just acting without the same distributed knowledge the market represents. It’s central top-down allocation trying to solve distributed problems, like the failure of the USSR.

To be clear, I’m a developer for Proof-of-Stake ecosystem tooling myself. But I think all PoS developers would agree that there’s no Proof-of-Stake mainnet network that yet has the capacity to absorb all of Bitcoin’s transaction flow—and there’s no reason that one or more governments saying “you have a year to transition to PoS” would change this.

The existing PoS chains are at the level of infrastructure development now, that the CFL+LED bulb industries were at around the year 1990. Do you think they could have suddenly achieved their 2014 (= the year Canada banned incandescents) level of infrastructure development in one year, if people just threw money at them? Technology—its productization, its operationalization, and ecosystem tooling adaptation—takes time.
Good old family values would discourage young, unmarried women from getting pregnant in the first place. That is absolutely not how society works today, so let's start there instead of your absurd example.
I apologize for joking on Hacker News, but go to Google and type in anything to do with a consumer product comparison, and you'll get a billion results of webpages filled with text indistinguishable from AI generated blather.
> Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states in part, “Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Strikes are included among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section.

From https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes
Depends. They have a lot of workers and can pull tricks without actually striking. Make every airplane circle one extra time before landing (when not otherwise in an emergency where this would be unsafe) can make a point without doing harm.

When dockworkers (IIRC in LA) decided to strike, but were not allowed to, they just came to work but they slowed work by driving forklifts at the 5mph that was in the handbook as the top speed instead of the faster speed they had been driving before. This backfired for them though, when the strike was resolved management took a firmer stance on the speed limit of forklifts because of how much safer everything was.
This is tempting to think, but we already ban the math that provides, say, serving of child exploitation content.
I always thought "working class" means you make your living via your labour, regardless of what that labour is.

The difference would be people who make their living by owning things (stock, companies, property) that pay dividends. This is not to say that they don't work hard, but that their income isn't directly tied to their labour.

In this sense, someone can be both lower class (poor) and a part of the owner class. Someone else can be upper class (rich) and working class.
That'd be me.

Yep, a total of < 1$, on an single, unknown and not even traded, but old coin (which I won't even mention) that is not going anywhere. Basically for fun.
Ha, you just reminded me of my student ID number in college. Also used to purchase snacks and meals at the commons. In the strangest of coincidences, it was my SSN.
What I want to get at is: let us have world peace.
Yes, let perfect be the enemy of the good.
This comment is basically, "How dare they ?"
Great product, love the idea. €4.99/mo is a lot for essentially querying an external database. What is that subscription get me, exactly?
While I should attempt to create objective and rational explanation for everything, I think most people recognize I'd be hubristic to assume I can do this in all cases. Whether or not a belief system has to come into play is perhaps subjective.
The irony is that I think most belief systems have the staying power they do because they cannot be entirely discredited through logic and reason.
I think that at some level you need a belief system. There will always be things beyond us, so at some level the only thing we can do is guess. But we shouldn't let those guesses dominate our life and we should re-evaluate them completely, say, at least every decade.
Why do you think BTC and ETH are still PoW? Because the major people making bank on proof of work refuse to allow a transition.
Isn't 10k a small investment?
List of Fully Remote Companies
Interview with the founder on the Register[0]

[0] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/29/google_news_netscape_...
It's hard to measure the long term financial impact of irradiated soil
"How dare they put their money where their mouth is?!"

"How dare they invest in what they think is a less harmful alternative?!"

"How dare they question our ponzi scheme!?"
Be a leader that is willing to make hard choices. Tell the public that sale of N95 masks is restricted to healthcare workers, and outline ways people can reduce their risk of infection while waiting for production of new masks to ramp up. At least then it would have made the idea of lockdowns more palatable.
> I've always wondered what their ultimate collective bargaining power

To be fair, unions don't exist solely as threats to employers. The ability to bargain collectively still results in better/fairer outcomes in most situations. Most of the time, employers want to compensate their employees in good faith. Most of the time, employees want to work for a team who get rewarded more or less fairly and not compete in a cutthroat arena where everyone has to bargain for themselves.

But yes: non-striking unions are absolutely not going to have the kind of corrective power in the face of genuine imbalance that real organized labor does.
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Other ledgers are better than bitcoin. Less energy use, faster, cheaper, better failure modes for users, etc.
Heavens forbid that anyone who doesn't own cryptocurrency should have a studied opinion about it and its massive reliance on Proof-Of-Converting-Absurd-Amounts-Of-Power-Into-Waste-Heat.

Heavens forbid that anyone who does own cryptocurrency and have concerns about said massive reliance on PoCAAoPIWH should put their money where their mouth is regarding those concerns. An absolute scandal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot

There are numerous examples of mayhem when police go on strike. In most cases, the military, guard, or militia are brought in to maintain some semblance of order. There is a reason police strikes are illegal.
> If someone believes in God as a sort of Santa Claus or Jinn granting wishes, then no, I don't believe in that kind of "deity" either. That's just silly nonsense.

Isn't that a teaching of Jesus?

> 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:9-11)

> He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20)

So why don't you believe in that?

I'm an atheist and can certainly see why it'd be silly to think that if you just pray hard enough god will grant your desire, but that's what the bible teaches. Otherwise, what's even the point of prayer?

And before you say "Oh, it was metaphorical" I'd point out the Lord's prayer where Jesus specifically prays for food. (Give us this day our daily bread). What is more good than for god to give a starving person food? Yet plenty of Christians starve, is it because they didn't believe enough?
I went to a Catholic highschool as a non-catholic. It was taught by marianists and we had visiting jesuits often. They generally taught that you reached your faith through logic and exploration and doubt of faith until you hit the point where you realize you can't explain it all with logic. They were very harsh on everyone's beliefs and made you analyze them. It didn't work for me but I appreciated the emphasis on critical thinking.

I did enjoy the classes where we just gutted and analyzed the bible like any other literary work, they were not shy about it and it was fun to watch it shock the "devout Catholic kids".
Every walmart in the country has that extensible conveyor for unloading trucks.
The real rickroll occurs after buying that page's NFT and realizing what they just did to you.
Search for Alien Life Moves Well Beyond Mars
I'm not sure the narrative you're trying to paint here actually works. If you dig deeper into the actual poll, it says:

> In addition to Protestants, declines in church membership are proportionately smaller among political conservatives, Republicans, married adults and college graduates. These groups tend to have among the highest rates of church membership, along with Southern residents and non-Hispanic Black adults.

From the actual first-party news article on the poll: https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-...

For better or worse, conservative (both politically and theologically) people seem to be holding on to their Christian faith in greater numbers (at least marginally) than their more progressive or liberal leaning counterparts.

Anyway, as someone who almost left the faith, I would agree with the overall narrative that Christianity became ineffective in the late 20th century. Personally though, I would attribute it to a lack of focus on youth and issues relevant to youths. I can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure I saw a poll that indicated most people who leave do so in the transition from high school to college. That certainly lines up with what I observed, most people just didn't care enough to keep going (regardless of what branch they were in). I would have been one of them myself, if I hadn't been able to find a college Christian community that was dramatically more vibrant than what I grew up with. But overall I think I'm one of the lucky ones.
Given that corporations, which are taxed, have adopted totalizing ideologies that demand you "bring your whole self to work" and attend group therapy sessions, and that they are now ostentatiously "values-driven", I can see a point in not distinguishing between them and religions. Pretty soon they'll have us singing hymns and attending confession. I'd hate if, when they finally go all in on that, they get taxed less.
I can only speak for myself, but I drastically simplified things down to 'If it doesn't hurt anyone, it's probably ok'

Just because a very old book says that X, Y, or Z is sinful, doesn't mean those actions are immoral if there's no harm to anyone.
> This is like saying incandescent light bulbs should be banned.

Yes, and they are being banned, in many places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_ligh...
Calculus Made Easy: Prologue: What one fool can do, another can
As someone who used to believe in bitcoin, the way it's used today is a net loss for society. So banning proof of work wouldn't be a bad idea.
With the same logic, let's add the option to move to another planet.
Actual question as I’m not too familiar with proof of stake. As described in the article, all that matters is how much is in your wallet...

Doesn’t that seem ripe for hyper capitalist abuse? I realize the article is just offering a simplified explanation, but the idea that whoever has the most money directly controls the money supply itself seems... well, not ideal?

So could anyone elaborate on what else about proof of stake leads to decentralization and fairness as opposed to just more incentives for centralization?
> No Christian person will ever make such a claim which is antithetical to the core premise of Christianity, universal brotherhood.

Ah yes, no true Christian.

A visit to the American South will disabuse you of that notion.
By that logic I guess if an Apple executive states they are hiring a diverse group of people and improving their hiring practices in response to criticism (I bet they have stated this?) your conclusion is Apple doesn't want to make good phones.

You might unpack why you see hiring a diverse group of people as the opposite of "making good product" but the long and short answer is you are the sort of reactionary I was talking about.

Never mind the fact that all Star Wars directors so far have been white men, or facts at all, you are angry and upset because someone told you to feel that way and told you that article should make you angry.
I meant non evil intellectuals who oftentimes don't want to have anything to do with these communities which leaves them open to be manipulated by the evil ones.
A carbon tax isn't some pie in the sky thing, most developed countries have implemented it.
I hope they'll give priority to ships with living animals that reported that they have feed just for a few days, and not just to whoever pays the most. Backlog will probably still take some time to clear.
Jordan Peterson’s lectures on Genesis are pretty great. I only listened to the first few but they are very powerful.

Are you looking primarily for Christianity or spirituality in general?

Braving the Wilderness (I haven’t finished this one)

For addiction: Breathing Underwater

New Seeds of Contemplation

By reputation: any CS Lewis, Bertrand Russel, and more contemporary is David Bentley Hart

Catching the Big Fish by David Lynch

The Four Agreements

Basically that’s what I’m see in my kindle at the moment that is relevant.

edit:
The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle is incredible
I hear the Bhagavad Gita is great
Start Where You Are by Pemma Chodron is great
so... we have Proof of Stake, in various forms.

And we can say "it will be banned in 1-2 years, you have the time to change the underlying tech.

With those premises the value will not change much, and the global advantages are big.
I am not sure the projections were unrealistic. The full picture simply wasn't known or even knowable. The best likely scenario with the known information was a few hours; the worst likely scenario was weeks.
Yes, we do.

We regulate all sorts of things, and this would be a smart thing to regulate.

Electricity distribution and often production is partly to fully socialized almost everywhere, meaning 'it affects us all'.

If you live on an island, disconnected from everyone else, then you can do whatever you want.
MS dev tools were freely accessible in the same nudge-nudge-wink-wink way that Adobe tools were. I don't think I ever attended a LAN party where people weren't trading cracked versions of the best MS had to offer. And MS never lifted a finger to stop this process. Hobbyists and students had access to everything MS had to offer and often wanted to keep using them in a professional setting.
Scholars are pretty divided on the long ending of mark , it's TRUE to say the oldest codices do not include it, but some old manuscripts do.

There's also some slight of hand being done by Erhman, the codex Vaticanus does not include the ending but the scribe has left space for it at the end of the chapter, showing that they had access to it and were debating putting it in... So you can say 'oldest manuscripts don't have it' but that isnt as conclusive as one might assume... This slight of hand is extremely common in Erhmans work.

As far as the woman taken in adultery, this passage is found in early manuscripts/lectuonaries but its position is being moved around d. Erhman is more committed to selling books and impressing undergrad baptists at UNC than be is with nuanced treatment of the facts...and his background as a low church protestant shines through all his work.... From an easterner perspective it's far less persuasive
It's the only practical solution really.

Cranes - Likely on a barge, on a relatively narrow canal. That's quite precarious. And make that two for both sides (canal is impassable).

Heavy lift helicopters - Even the few multiple automated cranes capable of handling a ship this size take days to unload it. Also these helicopters are quite expensive to operate.

Floatation devices - See Costa Concordia salvage operations. Lots of consideration for structural stress. Lots of mounting points on the ship. Lots of actual engineering needed for the floatation devices themselves.
> even if the majority are religious nutjobs

This is generally why I 'advocate' for atheism speficially, and street epistemology [1] generally: I want people to be able to effectively reason through their morals and beliefs, because I believe that will lead to a generally better society--or at the very least will make it easier for people to identify when they're arguing from different base assumptions.

My issue w.r.t. moral agency in religious folks is it's difficult to start having conversations around things like LGBT rights because their default stance is (paraphrased) "It doesn't matter what I think is 'right' or not, because I'm not the one who gets to say what is 'right' or not--that's God's job."

So before we can even get to the concept of "when (if ever) can you impose these moral beliefs on another" they're refusing to engage with the concept of a morality where that question matters.

To answer your specific question, no, I don't believe "any and all of [my] rights can and should be taken away if a majority of the people agree you shouldn't have those rights" because it doesn't align with my own moral perceptions: I don't think the majority is obviously correct. (For example, I am illegal in 71 countries and can be legally executed in 12. Perhaps not a strict majority, and I"m using laws as an indicator of moral policy, but certainly a lot of people--regardless, I do not agree with these things.)

That said, my perceptions __can be flawed__. I would hope that the tools I use to build them, and my willingness to discuss/argue/test them with others will prevent them from being egregiously wrong, but it is still possible that they would remain wrong. This makes it possible for me to correct my moral system where it is found lacking.

[1]: https://streetepistemology.com/
Would you make the same argument for driving a gasoline-guzzling truck? People have the right to tell you whatever you want, but you also have the right not to listen. In this case, I don't think the onus is on you, the individual consumer, to turn down their mining operation. It's problematic when something so wasteful is done on such a massive scale, as is the case with large corporate/state mining operations that are behind significant emissions..
“ Oil prices remained volatile, however, amid concerns to the time it may take to clear the almost 500 ship backlog and expectations that OPEC members will hold their production cut agreement in place following their monthly meeting in Vienna later this week.”
Such a perfect time for Democrats to play politics with energy. Wheee! Everyone get ready to bend over.
> For every branch, a PR must be opened, code must be reviewed, full test suite must be ran, the testers must ok that the change does not require extending the test suite, and only finally after the whole ordeal we're ok to merge.

Surely this isn't true for local branches on your machine? I hope you're not living under such a dystopia.
where's the plucky upstart wanting to disrupt ATC with their AI trained system to automatically route airtraffic? The uber of ATC?
What counts as evidence?

Some of the Catholic miracles sure seem pretty solid to me in terms of conveying God's will to us.

Like the one in Fatima, which was witnessed by thousands of people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
The incompleteness theorem proves unequivocally that our formulations that describe the universe are either incomplete (aka wrong) or cannot be proven correct. The question of planes of existence or deities sits at least on equal footing.

The most fundamental question is where everything came from. Even the Big Bang theory requires starting materials. The more generic -1 + 1 = 0 is neither useful nor has any mechanism for initialization.

Is little wonder that so many scientists tend toward simulationism. This is just god(s) with different trappings where unprovable metaphysics are studied through modern math and curves instead of ancient math and geometry.

It seems observational true that humans have an innate desire for god that is not seen in other species.

As a final note, the Bible teaches a final end of the wicked along with the final destruction of Satan along with the wicked (this was the proclamation at the beginning of the Bible telling them that if they sinned, they would cease to exist, through the major prophets like Isaiah’s woes against “the king of Tyre” to the New Testament talking of a final destruction of the wicked. The current tales of hell entered into Christian theology in the 3-400s when the mainstream denomination mixed in ideas from the pagan Roman religion. For this reason, you won’t find eternal torment for a few years of sin anywhere in the Bible.

Likewise, Heaven is simply the place where God resides (being called New Jerusalem). It is told that the city will descend to earth after judgment is complete. People don’t go to Heaven after death as some other plane of existence in the Biblical text. Instead, we see the archangel contending with Satan to raise Moses from the dead. Likewise, we see people raised from the dead when Jesus is raised. This would be unnecessary if they were already in Heaven. In fact, the whole Second Coming would be unnecessary if that were what was actually taught. Once again we see this idea entering from the same pagan sources at the same time.

Putting aside whatever people have told you and reading the book yourself, you’ll find something much different than the interpretations and sophistries people layer on top. This remains true whether you read as a believer or a non-believer (myself having experienced both at different times in my life).
> This is like saying incandescent light bulbs should be banned

They are banned in the EU, and are slowly being banned in the US.
>Both parties are heavily invested in beating and harassing strikers

That is some impressive hyperbole right there. Police have attempted to strike throughout US history, but the ensuing mayhem caused legislatures to change the laws.
Talking way outside of my understanding of POW, blockchain, etc, but what if POW was something with intrinsic value? Say for instance protein unfolding, physics number crunching, weather prediction, etc. And as a result this became the value of the ledger.

Surely the amount of energy consumed by this valuable POW would make it potentially worth it when the returns would benefit society, the environment, etc...