cntrlaltdlt

Man I had such a problem using paper space's notebook system, that I just gave up.

In retrospect though it was more to do with me not understanding how to use generator functions to better control memory bloating.

I think it is not a for stretch invoking "money laundering" is a knee jerk reaction to seeing crazy business model that doesn't make sense --> something fishy must be going on. While the neighbor of incompetence maybe malice they are rarely home, and if they are even more rarely seen in the house.

I know that when I first learned of movie pass years ago and it was explained to me. It made literally no sense how they'd turn a dollar despite it being explained to me more times than I can count.

I also remember thinking it sounded like some alternative scheme was going on. However I probably acted more paranoid than the rest and decided to pass on getting cheap movie tickets.

That was an entertaining read. Takes me back to a course in IO psychology I took on workplace motivation.

Intriguing as it was in some sense, the "models" that are hypothesized in this field are both hilarious and ridiculous. They are at best ad hoc representations of anecdotal information.

I think the only redeeming portion is relating all of this posturing to some sort of Darwinian understanding of expressed phenotypes with in corporate culture. Instead of reproduction via valued phenotypes. It's task assignment via phenotypes (typically irrespective of gender although that's a different discussion obviously).

The reason these types of classification structures fall apart from my view suggests a form of causality or even a form of determinism I've never been comfortable with. This is shown further with post hoc justification.

All that said I still enjoy reading this kind of stuff, if nothing else then to understand how different people group/classify/model the world around them but group/subgroups.

I am certainly on your side when it comes to mass rail transit being a really good solution for inter-city transportation. Especially now in the age where intra-city transit is so easy with uber/lyft.

The problem as it stands is land easements. Acquiring land in the US for larger social benefit at the expense of the land owner is generally A BIG FUCKIN NO NO. This premise has essentially locked many well planned rail projects from the get go. This just isn't a problem for the promise of self-driving car technology. Further more the opportunity cost argument is really weak. Al la "had we not spent so much money trying invent self driving cars we could have improved our rail system X times over ect." Because we have developed so much other technology out of that quest.

I dream of a day where there is a high speed rail system that connects the entire west coast. It would be a GIGANTIC boon for trade and commerce IMO.

Not that I disagree with you, but I'm curious.

If two things are fundamentally indistinguishable from one another based on molecular level and the difference is in the manufacturing processes why does it matter?

Let me put a few caveat on why 5 dollars in 2002 DNE 5 dollars in 2018 for a 12 year old.

   Ease of payment, when SA instituted this barrier a young troll intent on disruption had less of a problem coughing up 5 dollars for an account, and more of a problem finding a means to pay this 5 dollars. This is not the case for today's youth. See Xbox live and twitch donations if you don't think I'm being fair here.

   Scale-ability, which you directly touch on. Enforcing an upfront cost is a very real value calculation one must make prior to having extracted any value from the service and something most people my self included are currently adverse to. This directly impedes a communities ability to scale.

I can completely relate to your idea that I wouldn't pay to post on the forums. For years I had friends telling me to sign up and I always just shrugged and responded MEH why would I pay for that sort of thing? I didn't understand (at the time) the point or the reason for doing this. My (and many people's) value structure was in-congruent with the owner of SA.

Moving forward, people have to value the idea of an online community free of trolling in order to even put a price tag on that idea. I would find it very hard to believe that

a.) enough people (I'm talking an order of magnitude equal to the number of facebook users) value a troll free environment

b.) that, said people would have a unified enough of an idea of what an act of trolling is such that focused discussion doesn't boil down to pointing fingers. Maybe this point would merely resolve it self over time.

It's probably best to start defining what factors contribute to trolling of an online community.

What particular communities are more susceptible and why?

Let's first tackle the non-sybil form of trolling and think about individuals.

Consider the differences and similarities between a community like linked in vs say 4chan? These are as far apart on the spectrum of communities as I can currently think of. Is one of these communities more easily trolled or duped than the other? Why might that be?

I hypothesize a community like linkedin would be more difficult to troll as you must offer personal data or spoof personal data in order to be let into the community. Certainly this isn't impossible to circumvent, but requires a greater degree of commitment. This commitment is essentially a subconscious time value calculation as well as a calculation of social cost. The logical conclusion is that the social cost of being a troll on Linked in is difficult as there is a very real and immediately perceivable lost opportunity cost.

Let's take another example of online discourse and hold a single variable constant, identity. Consider a discussion forum for a college course where students are asked to participate in discussion of class material learned from a physical lecture hall VS topical online discussion on a facebook group. Both groups are forced to offer up some form of personal identification. There is one difference between the groups and that is face to face interaction. My hypothesis is that the first group has a larger social cost tied to being a troll on the discussions and perceivable punishment from acting in bad faith vs facebook where the social costs can be diminished and mostly result in being unfriended. Even removing the possibility of lost tuition dollars as punishment (aka you attend free college) I would argue that the per capita rate of trolling would be diminished compared to facebook.

To summarize my hypothesis with in the original scope, if an individual does not perceive the social costs for their actions with in any community their propensity for becoming a bad actor should increase.

Not to be a snarky, but this worked in 2002(?) to combat 12 year old trolls.

The point it really speaks to is

What is an appropriate barrier to entry for an online community where two conditions are satisfied?

1. The online community can scale. 2. The online community is susceptible to what is essentially a sybil attack.

It may be the case these two conditions are inversely related and can't be simultaneously satisfied.

In the case of SA the admin correctly identified that 12 year old trolls aren't willing to pay 5 dollars to troll. This is an economic barrier to entry that just doesn't apply in the current landscape.

Don't be snarky. Regardless of your thoughts on the technological importance or application of crypto, at least make an attempt and justify your position. Otherwise you just come across as a troll.

To the OP, while I can't recommend a book specifically tailored to crypto, I'd broaden your search to financial algos in general as they are mostly applicable to trading in the crypto realm.

To start you on your search take a look at github repos that teach simple maker taker bots. There are tons of them

Thank you!