green1
Honestly bemused by this. How is the following single sentence way over the line, other than the parts I quoted (which amount to about half of it)?
So your personal experience does nothing less than illustrate Google's
tracking to an "obvious" degree, but my personal experience is simply
"making a sweeping judgement" and "confusing this with knowledge for the
sake of my own cognitive hygiene".
Thanks for the links to the newcomments/noobcomments
You think the post I replied to doesn't break (at the very least) that rule? Perhaps if you came down harder on the in-crowd high karma posters, other people wouldn't have to sarcastically thank them for their abuse.
> Your post was downvoted and flagged by legit users.
It was downvoted and flagged as soon as it was posted. So legit users with enough karma to downvote are sitting reloading page 2 threads for new posts half way down the page?
I don't even particularly care that much, but it's still creepy, and I'm genuinely surprised to see denials because I thought fingerprinting was pretty standard these days.
From other comments here I assumed it did something sinister/sophisticated (matching photos, avatars or even text analysis) to try and tie a poster at one site to another site.
I had the impression Satoshi was relatively matter of fact about Bitcoin, but I haven't read much of his/her/their own words.
Churchill: 13,717,851
Attlee: 13,948,385He was not even that popular in his finest hour, as head of a cross-party coalition wartime government, being kicked out of office by the British people before the war had even ended and never once won the popular vote in any general election.
Edit: Someone obviously doesn't like easily verifiable facts.
1. Attacker needs a .gov from a swing state
2. No they don't, because nobody who'd fall for this would analyze the sender address/website URL, let alone for .gov instead of .org/.net/.com, and there's zero need to emulate a gov website anyway, when emulating a news site would be at least as effective
3. It relies on people reading an email on election day before voting and then not bothering to verify what it says anywhere, not having someone tell them it's fake and not hearing about the scam on the news they're watching for the bomb story
> There is no KYC process.
How does an unbanked put their paper money into their cryptocurrency account without a KYC process? (Please don't say trust a random third party stranger in a pub offering cryptocurrency at an exorbitant markup.)
> There are no fees for opening or having an account
I've never paid a fee to open or have a bank account, but how does an unbanked put their paper money into their cryptocurrency account without paying a fee (or an exorbitant markup)?
> You don’t need to trust a third party with your money.
How does an unbanked get their paper money into their cryptocurrency account without trusting a third party?
> There’s no need to visit a financial institution. As long as you have internet access you always have access to your money and can make payments.
Online and phone banking existed decades before Bitcoin was created.
> Around 60% said they had too little money to use a bank account
Yet they'd somehow have enough to put into cryptocurrency account?
At first I thought rabidrat was just trolling/joking, but their other comments seemed legit, so wondered if they meant the site in the OP or they had a virus or his site had been hacked.
I even Googled the quoted text, but it just brings up the HN comment. Just didn't think of clicking the profile.
In fact even if you deliberately add .html to the about page URL it just redirects to /about anyway, which makes your comments even more baffling.