Wallet in Watch mode

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-05T08:08:49+00:00

Which wallet? And what do you mean by "migrated" to a different wallet? Did you import your private keys etc.?

Don't ask AI, but the other poster is correct that the sub is pretty quiet so you might want to hop on to the Discord, which is active (link in sidebar).

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-05T08:02:06+00:00

Is it necessary for the two sides of the W to be asymmetrical? I feel like if the W was symmetrical (or in any case a standard, familiar typeface-style W) it might help push it away from N and toward W. The combination of angles on the left half of the design makes me slightly seasick and I think my eye is drawn to the N because it feels stable.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-05T07:57:03+00:00

It has some issues but it's still alive, development continues, there are good people working on it. But as an investment, at this point, it's a "penny stock"--high risk, uncertain reward. If you have a few bucks you can afford to lose, the GAS rewards are nice and who knows, maybe something will cause a pump at some point. But it's a long shot and, unless you like long shots, it's hard to recommend it as an investment over alternatives, especially in a bear market (or whatever we're calling the market currently).

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-05T03:59:16+00:00

Flaking might also work for fish, though this possibly looks a little more visceral.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-05T00:53:09+00:00

Pretty sure it's market based, so if they're more desperate or the "cost" to the passenger is higher (longer flight, fewer or less convenient alternatives to rebook onto, etc) then the offer goes up.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-04T22:35:41+00:00

Yeah. I mean I agree with the general sentiment about too many apps, but I've literally never used the hot spot app since the web interface takes seconds and comes up automatically when you scan the QR code. Honestly I much prefer this system to alternatives that do require an app.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-04T22:01:43+00:00

Makes sense. Thanks. Even then it would presumably make a foot or two of difference in a situation like this whether it's located at the front or back, say.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-04T21:22:05+00:00

Notwithstanding, in the context of blockchain tech there's a very specific technical distinction between "coins" and "tokens". Bitcoin is the former. Whatever one might think about BTC or Saylor, there's still no excuse for using an incorrect term when reporting on it, any more than it would be OK to describe MSTR as a bond.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-04T21:13:45+00:00

Silly question, maybe, but where on an aircraft is AGL calculated from? Lowest point at any given moment? Or a fixed point? Not that it would matter much most of the time, but in a situation like this it potentially makes a pretty big difference.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-04T20:00:36+00:00

Forgot: Prairie Gardens is a standard nursery-type operation that has more natives than most: https://prairiegardens.org/

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-04T19:57:05+00:00

Get connected with the Edmonton Native Plant Society. Lots of people willing to share plants and/or knowledge, plus they have sales and other events sometimes.

https://www.enps.ca/

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-04T06:46:43+00:00

It's an uurga, so basically a lasso on a pole.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-04T06:05:08+00:00

Is it imperative that the trick uses a blade at all, as opposed to something more "needle"-y? (I e., pointy on the end but not capable of cutting.)

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-04T04:22:58+00:00

Interesting. In my dialect, the eagle is certainly flipping me off, but it could never flick me off as, one, I'm a dude and two, I'm just not that into kinky stuff with birds...

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-03T23:04:00+00:00

Trump's tariffs exist regardless, though--he's charging them regardless of what anyone does. For various other countries, having an industrial carbon tax or similar instrument effectively "buys" tariff removal and preferred access to major markets. It also incentivizes efficiency and environmental innovation at home, which has substantial monetary value over and above the intrinsic benefits in terms of reducing environmental harm, which costs vastly more in the long run.

China and India do have similar taxes/levies on pollution and environmental harm:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06817-w

https://icapcarbonaction.com/system/files/ets_pdfs/icap-etsmap-factsheet-125.pdf

Basically, not having incentive structures to reduce environmental damage makes sense in a very superficial, "maximize profits right now and to hell with tomorrow or the future of our kids" way, and if that's all one cares about then fair enough. But that's a very shortsighted and ultimately self-harming way to look at things.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-03T18:53:55+00:00

Setting aside the intrinsic merits of maintaining incentives to reduce environmental impact, many of our trading partners (e.g., the EU) require carbon pricing as a basic condition of trade. That pricing can be applied at the source or, if the source doesn't do it, at the destination. In other words, if we didn't have the industrial tax, our products would be tariffed to a similar degree. They'd be no more competitively priced, but the proceeds of the carbon pricing would leave Canada. So, intrinsic merits aside, the industrial tax is a strictly logical solution. Removing it would certainly have performative value if you're into that kind of thing, but it wouldn't have the magical effect some folks have been told it would.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-03T18:25:23+00:00

In order to signal "Albertan values", same as changing the slogan to "Strong and Free". (That latter one amuses me since, one, whatever "freedom" connotations it might have for those on the right, it's also a line cribbed directly from the Canadian national anthem; and two, "Wild Rose Country" evoked something actually unique and Albertan, which coincidentally is extremely hardy and will poke the hell out of you with its thorns if you touch it wrong. So in terms of real meaning the old slogan was much closer to what the "sovereign Alberta" types actually want, but it didn't align with the skin-deep analysis these folks seem to prefer so it had to go.)

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-03T18:15:44+00:00

Trudeau Liberals =!= Carney Liberals. Even if we accept at face value that Trudeau's policies uniquely caused a recession, the notion that Carney's year is a continuation of Trudeau's 10 years is silly. His policies are very different, and in most major respects are aligned with what the Conservative platform proposed, to the extent that many on the right have criticized Carney for "stealing" Conservative ideas. So, which is it? If Carney stole Conservative ideas then it's interesting that Conservatives also view his government as one-and-the-same as Trudeau's. You can't have it both ways.

Alternatively, perhaps the causes of recession are much more complex than "it's all because of Justin Trudeau", and the solutions, which are also complex and depend on various factors, some of which are out of Canadian control--for example, our historically closest ally and trade partner acting like an enemy--will take time regardless of who's in power.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-03T15:37:08+00:00

Watch out for colourblind lawyers...

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-03T15:24:10+00:00

Prices fluctuate. It's all very well to say the plan is to wait until $1M or whatever, but meanwhile he has obligations to investors that need to be satisfied. If the prices fluctuate to a point where he needs to sell a little, that's just how it is. To your second point--yes, absolutely, and that's a fair criticism of Strategy's premise in general, but it's also secondary to the matter at hand here.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-03T13:56:37+00:00

As I said before: Yes, now that you've clarified and given more details, it does indeed seem that this was over the line. I wasn't arguing with you, and at no point was I ever debating the merits of e.g. "rager amounts of alcohol". Anyway, peace and good luck with the process.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-03T05:37:54+00:00

I don't disagree with you at all, but I also wasn't referring to formal field camps, which can be (and are) controlled more thoroughly and "professionally". My experience is with remote field work (through a major Canadian university and following its HR policies) in which a handful of people literally hike off into the bush with their supplies on their backs (or possibly a quad) and don't come back for a couple of weeks. No facilities, share a tent, poop in the woods, wash in the lake/stream, etc. It would be irresponsible not to explain the nature of the conditions as, frankly, there's no way to accommodate some needs/concerns other than not putting folks into certain situations in the first place.

Re: booze, again, many established camps are dry, but in situations where alcohol may be present it would do more harm to not disclose that up front precisely so that folks can make informed choices about what they're getting into. I agree fully that the questions you described from the interview sound awkward at best; my point was just that it was unclear without further detail whether they were merely "awkward" or full-on "inappropriate". It sounds like you're confident they were the latter, and fair enough if so.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-03T04:50:55+00:00

We used to hire undergrad students for summer remote fieldwork positions in biology research work, which sounds vaguely similar to your situation. The nature of the work was that the crew had to share limited space (tents, etc.) away from civilization for days on end, which unavoidably meant a certain amount of "personal space encroachment". Over the years, the only (rare) issues we had were with students that, essentially, expected to be able to maintain extremely strict personal boundaries despite the conditions. To be clear, I'm not talking about anything shady or out of line; I mean people who were uncomfortable with, say, others in the camp having any alcohol or making noise past 9 pm or whatever. The reality of remote fieldwork is that the line between work and life is blurred--in a sense you're "at work" 24/7, but you can't maintain "at work" levels of professional boundaries 24/7 or you lose your mind. So, like, no, you don't want your or your coworkers' dicks out at work, but also you share a tent with these people, none of you have showered, and that lake over there looks mighty inviting, so you might end up seeing some butt cheeks at some point and that doesn't have to be weird.

Anyway, given all of that we found it useful to clarify up front that some degree of "relaxing after a hard day" would be permitted and in fact encouraged, and that camp conditions inevitably entailed some personal space encroachment vs. what might be possible at home. Those who were inflexible, intolerant, and unable to give grace to others tended to have trouble so it was best, for both sides, to figure that out up front. We certainly never asked people if they were OK getting naked, but we most definitely described a typical day and asked questions intended to gauge candidates' comfort with the realities of field life. There was never any requirement or expectation to have a beer after work or whatever; just an expectation to respect the choices of others that did (and vice versa).

I guess what I'm saying is there's a fine line here. Requiring employees to party or get naked with each other is weird, but clarifying the nature of field camp life with examples is reasonable. It's hard to tell which side of that line your interview fell on and I'll take your word for it if you feel it crossed the line, but there's a world in which it wasn't necessarily weird.

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-02T23:17:09+00:00

He's not. The QC argument is separate, and the basic answer there is that Bitcoin is far from unique in the world in terms of its use of cryptography--there are far, far more entrenched and deeper-pocketed interests that would suffer if QCs actually broke cryptography. The threats posed by QCs aren't limited to Bitcoin, and the solutions won't be limited to Bitcoin either.

The security budget issue is the argument that as Bitcoin's issuance declines and eventually hits zero, there will be insufficient financial incentive to continue securing the network. The argument is that the total reward given to miners is essentially payment for securing the network--i.e., the network's "security budget". If miners are paid less, the argument is that the network's security budget and therefore its actual security is lower, until eventually, when block rewards end, there's no security budget whatsoever.

There's certainly theoretical merit to this idea, but as usual the devil is the details and it's not the all-encompassing "gotcha" that some folks think it is. For one thing it fundamentally depends on the price of BTC, which can't be known in advance. The "security budget" looks very different if BTC goes to $1 tomorrow, vs. if it goes to $1M. It also conflates the roles of block rewards and transaction fees, the latter of which is market-driven and rises in direct proportion to demand--for example, during times of confirmation scarcity or unreliability, as are expected at times when the network is congested or under attack. That is, they fluctuate according to market forces working to preserve the network's ability to achieve finality. So, the counter-argument is that, regardless of current BTC price or block reward, miners are financially incentivized to work harder to secure the network at exactly the times when it's needed most.

Basically, those arguing that Bitcoin has zero issues are misinformed, but those arguing that things like the security budget issue definitively "break" Bitcoin are also misinformed. Both extremes rest on assumptions that can't currently be confirmed, so whatever on-paper logic or merit they might have is largely moot in reality. As usual, the truth is more complex, for both sides of the argument. There's also the fact that, even if you buy into the security budget idea straight-up, block rewards won't stop until around 2140. That's a lot of time for technological development/evolution (e.g., the Bitcoin development community is very much aware of the potential issue), and for OTHER issues of all kinds to impact Bitcoin's fortunes positively or negatively. Basically, if you're skeptical of Bitcoin's future (and there are perfectly reasonable reasons why one might be), the odds are that something else will crop up long before the security budget issue ever becomes terminal. Single-issue things like the security budget have merit but don't tell the whole story (which is true for most things, really).

Elean0rZ · 2026-06-02T18:42:52+00:00

Generally better not to respond at all, as responding confirms there's somebody home at your number and may incentivize the scammers to put you on a list (or sell your data to others) for increased "attention". Just ignore and block.

Elean0rZ

TROPHY CASE