Last time i checked, Brave was insisting on convinving me to use certain cryptocurrency platforms and it was more intrusive with it than typical web ads, which seemed really twisted, as the same Brave claimed to give ad-free experience.
No, they're not. I've been using Brave almost since its inception and I still have no idea what its cryptocurrency features are. Nor have I ever seen an intrusive ad from Brave, or anywhere else since Brave has an ad blocker built in.
Why does this same conversation happen every time Brave is mentioned on HN? Have any of the people complaining about Brave's crypto-whatever "problem" ever actually used it?
It literally never did that. There's some crypto wallet button that you get in the address bar that you can disable with a right click, and that's pretty much the extent of it. All crypto and other related functionality is completely opt-in.
I don't know when exactly it happened but you can be 100% sure anyone complaining about fiat currency has no idea what fiat currency actually is, has something to sell you, and if you don't get out soon enough you'll be standing there listening to them misunderstand Nixon at you.
Seems like kind of a non sequitur. Who would keep the money purely liquid? GP was pretty obviously talking about if it were invested, which statistically would have beat inflation using even pretty conservative options/funds. Using the 4% rule, it would have yielded $1.2m annually in 1990 value, and adjusted up for inflation every year thereafter. That's more than $2.8m/year in today's dollar.
Not only that, but in the odd scenario where it was "kept liquid", or kept purely in cash, it'd be worth $30m in today's money, not $100k. It's not clear where the $100k figure is even coming from. Even $100k/year doesn't make sense in any context I can derive.
What? That's not how inflation works. Even left to rot in a bank account it would still be 30 mil today. Not worth as much as 30 mil in 1990 but still worth as much as 30 mil in 2024 because it is still 30 mil.
The only way I can think of it making sense is if @syklep is from a country with a currency that has inflated 10% every year with respect to the dollar for the past 60 years, and that they assumed you'd buy local currency with the $30m when you get it and now would try to sell it back for dollars.
I don't think that currency exists though. The closest current example I can think of is if you're Argentinian and you bought $30m worth of Argentinian pesos in 1992 which would be worth ~$35k today. But that is due to relatively recent hyperinflation, not yearly 10% inflation, 10 years ago it would still be worth $4.3m, 15 years ago $8.8m.
You'd have to be seriously asleep at the wheel (or being strong-armed by local law enforcement, unfortunately) to keep your liquid currency parked in a hyperinflationary currency.
absolutely bizarre that imessage is considered a lock in tactic when all they do is green bubble blue bubble phoneshaming and whatsapp exists for the other stuff
Ralph Lauren had a lock on my friend cohort in 10th grade. If you didn't have the polo logo on your shirt, you were ridiculed. If you had a logo that looked a little bit like the Polo logo but wasn't you got cast out. My parents said "but this other shirt we bought you is superior in every way and doesn't break our budget" and I said, "I need the Polo or I'm killing myself."
Kids care what their friends think. A lot. Green bubbles are the same thing and so parents get their kids iPhones instead of Galaxies and the lock continues.
Which means there can never be a free market since there will always be people able to bribe and manipulate in order to get their way. It doesn't matter how much oversight and transparency you have, those things can be slowly chipped away overtime and replaced with laws that favor the ultra rich at the expense of everyone else. I'd love to be wrong about that, but I've never seen an example of a country where wealth had no power to influence law.
Because capitalism is an entirely different concept. Capitalism is an economic system of relations that prioritizes the right to exercise one's existing capital to accumulate more of it, hence the word capitalism. So-called "free markets" is a utopian concept that is not a requirement of capitalism and of course has never existed in any honest sense of the idea.
People ARE fundamentally selfish in any groups above 150-200 where the social net breaks down. Most groups of animals don't stay group-serving in giant groups, we are no different.[1] In groups small enough to be inside the social net, tribe survival dynamics work great.
> things were bad, then society developed and now things are better”
Things are not great. Technology makes them better though. Man can't easily escape technology today, but it is the fundamental trade-off society offers at the cost of social health.
When I was a teenager my screen time was the maximum feasible. Now my average screentime is between 12 and 14 hours a day. I'm yet another gainfully employed software engineer.
I don't think there is any empirical evidence correlating tech addiction to income, but if there was I wouldn't be surprised if the relationship was positive.
It's not surprising at all for Utah. That is a highly Mormon run state that has strong stances on how you should live your life. Even if you are a "goi" (I use the word loosely to illustrate the cultural metaphor in a us v them mentality) to them.
What is amazing is that they have this strong stance on how to restrictively govern the people inside their borders, but yet expect to have a western lifestyle support them. More organizations should stand up and say "I'll pass" in a blanket ban on them.
> That is a highly Mormon run state that has strong stances on how you should live your life. Even if you are a "goi" (I use the word loosely to illustrate the cultural metaphor in a us v them mentality) to them.
I think you're crossing a line here. You are accusing the Mormons in Utah of having a us-versus-them mentality. But your own comment tries to turn readers against Mormons.
Never forget: The Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Mormon Extermination Order, was issued on October 27, 1838, by Governor Lilburn Boggs. The order authorized the expulsion of Mormons from the state and is sometimes referred to as the "Mormon Kill Law". However, the order was rescinded by Governor Christopher S. "Kit" Bond in 1976.
I think we should all be more charitable to Mormons after what they've been through.
That was 185 years ago, how charitable have Utah mormons been this year to the LGBT community? The unspoken intentions of this bill given the state's recent legislative priorities are absolutely horrifying and far more deserving of criticism and deep skepticism than charity.
Internet Archive has been ruled against... for acting exactly like a physical library. Offering a single copy of a book at a time for a period of borrowing. Their intent is to be a widely accessible library.
[1] https://search.brave.com/help/privacy-policy
Edit: mojeek claims the same.[2]
[2] https://www.mojeek.com/about/privacy/