Avatar
HardRich
8d233d8babe9f40f170c5b0706fd4832869e07d040cfcd6b702d57e070aad1cb
Replying to Avatar ODELL

Core back then wanted Bitcoin to be a store of value and not have big blocks. Current Core seems to changing their tune. Seems like they're now siding with Ver?

Been using grapheneOS for a while and often turn off radios. I know that's still not good enough, though. The tricky thing is communications with spouse and kids - walkie talkies have such short range and LoRa seems to have similar range issues. I don't think I could get my wife to get a ham license. I hope mesh networks or walkies get better ranges without massive antennas.

But isn’t fair to ask why Core is removing the limit? Does removing it make the code base easier to read/maintain Like, what’s the rationale? Does keeping the limit hurt anything?

No slander intended, just making a point. Same as how ā€œtrusting the scienceā€ may be questionable due to incentives. So it’s worth asking questions, imo.

Ultimately, I’m just not hearing about the benefits that come from the size limit. Why isn’t that being discussed? Can you speak to the benefits? Instead of benefits all I’m hearing is: It’s worthless to resist or trust the professionals. I just want to know the benefits since I’m usually on the side of progress.

Can someone tell me why increasing op_return size limit is a good thing? How does it make bitcoin better as a monetary network? Does it make lightning, Ark, or ecash way better?

Replying to Avatar Guy Swann

Gaming break:

I loved Breath of the Wild, but have to admit that I have no attachment to Tears of the Kingdom whatsoever.

The sequel feels like the same game, with all of the same basic functions and enemies, and the entire ā€œbuilding and connecting thingsā€ mechanic is terrible, imo. I have zero desire to use it ever, and they have these stupid piles of stuff to build a cart with all over the place like it’s something useful, but it’s so annoying to build them, and then you can’t steer worth crap and it almost never gets you anywhere far enough to justify trying to put it together. It seems completely useless other than there are little quests or puzzles that purposefully add elements where you need it to complete a task… but even that feels forced and arbitrary.

And the ā€œsky worldā€ element just kinda feels like somebody said ā€œman we should do something different this time… what if we had a bunch of floating islands in the sky!ā€ And then that was it. Theres no reason for it. It doesn’t matter to the story. It doesn’t seem attached to anything of consequence or have even a mystery around it to solve… it just… is.

Also, despite trying to start it back up multiple times in my ā€œspare timeā€ (as if I have any of that), and still in this moment I have no idea what the story is. There’s literally no hook, or engrossing question to answer, so every element just feels like something arbitrary that I’m watching without even knowing why any of it matters.

Just really sad considering BoTW felt like a revival of the Zelda franchise, and I think they spent too much time wondering how they could capitalize on it as quick as possible, rather than thinking about how to make another really engaging story & game for the sequel.

Important caveat: had the game and all the mechanics been the same still, but the story had been super engrossing, none of that other stuff would’ve mattered.

Anyway, that’s my 2 sats on why the new Zelda game hasn’t been able to convince me to charge my Nintendo Switch for like 6 months.

Agreed. I keep going back to BoW since Tears is just not engaging to me. The build thing and being on same map is less than fun.

Ice Barrel 300, Active Aqua ¼ HP, and supplies. Just under $2.5k with taxes and shipping. About the cheapest I could find with insulation and decent looks.

Just ordered a tub and chiller. Got tired of tons of ice cubes for the bath. Excited to get much colder. Loving the feeling after - almost like pain meds. :)

What types of categories, though? Take gymnastics: do you go with weight or BMI? But how do you handle that men typically have more upper body strength? Take running? Is it weight, height, etc?

Even if it something as simple as BMI or some single number formula how many groupings do you have?

Let’s say there are 2-3 groups. Who’s watching those events? I assume everyone would watch the ā€œtopā€ group since they’d be more elite.

Bottom levels prob wouldn’t be watched.

You could argue men’s sports are watched more but at least some folks like to watch women’s sports. If you just have groupings based on some single number of ā€œelitenessā€ then who watches the lower levels where there is no gender differences?

As in, some women’s sports might have lower level of ā€œelitesā€ (compared to men) but people will watch women’s gymnastics and running, etc. But who’s going to watch ā€œLevel 3ā€ athletes that are, by definition, the least elite?

I’m not a boomer but I don’t love swears. Swearing is clearly a way to express an extreme utterance (if not then just say something tame like ā€œflipā€) so why would someone taking offense be unexpected?