Sure. It's like Bitcoin, where people mint their own coins if the computation they do meets the rules of the network. In this it's a hyrbrid proof of work for transactions, with proof of stake for inflation. Just like CDs in the normal world, when you lock longer you get higher interest. However unlike the real world, when others aren't locking as much or as long, you get more. And if more people lock more and longer, then you get less (similar to Bitcoin mining, except rewarding stake mass length instead of hashrate.)
Just inflates, just like bitcoin. Bitcoin inflates to pay miners, HEX inflates to pay stakers. Everyone thinks that Bitcoin is deflationary, but it's actually quite inflationary, which is the only way to go from 0 coins 10 years ago to 18 million coins today. BTC had two pumpamentals. 1. Freemium onboarding by double clicking an exe in the beginning. 2. Cut inflation rate in half every 4 years. Now, even after it's been cut in half twice, it's still about 4%
I got the same when I opened it using my browser. So I opened it in my "remote browser" (this is not a plug, just a help): https://free.cloudbrowser.xyz and it was much more usable.
A takeaway seems to be: if you're going to use AI in product, let the AI power a whole new type of product, not use it as a feature in an existing one.
It depends on what model they're using. If they're just using the Poincare disk (as is displayed) then translations/rotations/reflections- isometries- of the hyperbolic plane are modeled by the Mobius transformations that map the unit circle (the edge) to itself. Geometrically speaking, Mobius
transformations in the plane are 1) ordinary reflection, translation, and scaling, and 2) circle inversions, and form a group. Translations of the poincare disk are compositions of two circle inversions that end up mapping the center of the circle to some other point inside the disk, and map the disk to itself.
This just means another paradox of fake liberal ideology is showing.
It's not surprising if the strategies such as diversity quotas are not effective. Because they're not meant to be effective. They're meant to virtue signal. Ergo they are meant to only redirect people's anger towards an ineffective end, not to create an actual improvement.
For another example, take a prevailing narrative in fake feminism that continually tells women they are disempowered victims. This doesn't help bring balance, it only helps disenfranchise women.
Of course, if that were true, why would anyone believe any of these narratives such as diversity quotas? Because they provide the fake victim fake payoff: there's something very compelling about not having to be responsible for your problem but instead being able to blame someone else albeit incorrectly. It's very satisfying and an effective means to redirect anger towards a ineffective but satisfying ends. It's very compelling for people and gets them hooked.
Another place these fake payoffs are used to manipulate people is in terrorist recruitment. You can sublimate raw economic issues and individuals dissatisfaction into blaming and hatred towards another state, you can create armies of willing footsoldiers.
I'd suggest there's a further parallel between armies and the "Twitter armies": legions of ideologues willing to crucify anyone who dares disagrees.
So it's not surprising these so-called strategies do little effective. they're not meant to, they're meant to preserve the status quo. And they do that by the simple psychological mechanism of redirecting people's anger towards something ineffective.
not that I know anything but it seems like the decision was complex both to create the Alphabet and now to kind of merge it under one CEO.
I think some of the reasons could be they no longer see a risk of anti Monopoly regulation targeting them so they don't need to keep everything so divided. they genuinely want to give Sundar a go. They need a process to gradually fade out The original founders, but also importantly ensure those founders isolate their risk from any future missteps the companies take, and vice versa.
maybe the two co-founders were simply getting in the way.
There is a big reason but I don't know what you need so I can't say.
Don't blame me if you're unhappy with that response, "Anon" . You need to let people know what your pain points are. Not prepared to provide any details in your question? Then don't expect any details in a response, is that unclear to you? Your reaction is your responsibility, "Anon".
Anon didn’t downvote you, when you reply to somebody they can’t downvote your direct reply (but can proceed to downvote further down the chain if need be).
Sure they did. Some anon was unhappy with that response. Could be main account of the throw but who cares? My repliy is directed at anyone unhappy with that response.
Don't blame me if you're unhappy with that response, "Anon" . You need to let people know what your pain points are. Not prepared to provide any details in your question? Then don't expect any details in a response, is that unclear to you? Your reaction is your responsibility, "Anon".
You can't break the site guidelines like this. Since you've got a long history of doing that on this site, I've banned this account until we get some reason to believe that you won't keep doing it.
Is that so? You're sure this is all about guidelines?
Seems like you didn't protect me from people throwing insults like this, and so then banning me while I'm defending against it, just makes you complicit in enabling their abusive behavior.
What will you create for yourself if that's how you moderate?
A comment like "You have a problem, your problem is not me. Have you been drinking?" so obviously breaks the guidelines that yes, I'm pretty sure this is about the guidelines.
If someone else posted an insulting comment and we didn't moderate it, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here. You can always let us know at hn@ycombinator.com if there's something we need to take care of.
this would be possible. you can create incognito tabs via right click. each of these has a separate ephemeral profile, so separate sessions and cookies. you could then modify the user agent and navigator platform for each of those different browser contacts. however they still all go over the same IP.
not sure how to make different IP per tab, but perhaps proxy settings are scoped to the browser context, so it might be possible, haven't read the devtools protocol deeply about that.
