Sorry, I don't see what you're talking about in the Astrology entry. It's not a very long or in-depth entry, but it seems to be fairly accurate and neutral to me. It explains what astrology is, differentiates it from astronomy, and explains that many scientists don't feel there are any supportable hypotheses in astrology, but despite that many people do believe in it. These are all factual statements, not really beliefs. Personally, I think astrology is bullshit, and I bet most Slashdot readers do too, but it wouldn't really be very encyclopedia-like to say "we all know astrology is bullshit" in a wikipedia entry. It's probably sufficient to say that most scientists think it's bullshit and that it fails to present any disprovable hypotheses and thus isn't really science at all.
I don't really think this is contradictory. When I'm not at my desk working, and it's not in normal business hours, you don't have a right to reach me. If you happen to be able to reach me on my cell phone, great, but don't get angry if you have to leave a voicemail and I call you back later.
Coming by in person is more of an investment in time, and picking up the phone and calling somebody is as well. Generally, I've found that people make this investment in time when the need is there, and know not to abuse it. Furthermore, if you are busy/on the phone/whatever you are "unavailable" for in person discussion too. There are always times when you are going to be unavailable, that's just something other people have to learn to deal with, and again, it sets up the importance threshold - if it's really critical, they can wait 5 minutes to talk to you, otherwise, they can fire you an email saying they need to talk when you have a chance.
I think IM is too distracting - people know not to call you at work unless it's important, but people never seem to have the same kind of compunction about IMing people at work. Just my observations. I guess we could just try to "educate" everybody that IM should not be abused, but that's just not the way people seem to naturally use the medium. I don't see any obvious benefit to using it in the workplace, and while I wouldn't object to others using it, I'm almost certain I'd find that they were mostly using it to chat with friends and not to get actual work done.
You can mirror the content, since I believe it's all under the GNU Free Documentation License or something similar. Wikipedia is truly open. As for running a live, real-time mirror of any Wiki system, that would be a bit more difficult - the Jargon File is just static HTML. Wikis are read-lots-write-frequently systems, by design, and Wikipedia is a database-backed system. So keeping it updated in lots of places would require replicating the commits to all the DBs. Read-only mirrors should be possible (obviously, writeable mirrors would create the need for distributed transactions of some sort to prevent conflicting commits from occurring - and that really wouldn't scale).
Using read-only mirrors, even just as front ends that passed users through to the real database to do updates, would probably solve all the realistic scaling issues too. Or they could partition their database onto separate systems by subject, since I don't imagine their are any real data interdependencies between subjects in a Wiki system.
IM has no place being used in most company environments. It's a fundamentally interruptive medium and makes the cost of interrupting somebody too low for the interrupter. Especially if you are managing a team of thought-workers, like programmers. If you have an important issue to discuss with somebody in the office, pick up your phone, or drop by their cube/office. If it's not important or immediate enough for that, email them and let them respond when they are taking a break. Or if it involves more people, bring it up at a daily or weekly team meeting.
You are definitely dead-on - it sounds like they did manage themselves and you out of a job. In the future, I'd recommend you see managers who are so short sighted that they want to constantly nag and harrass their employees as a clear indicator of a project/company destined for failure and avoid them at all costs. Instead of getting yourself reprimanded by ignoring explicit instructions, float your resume around and find another job or transfer to a different group if you're in a big enough company. It was obvious to you that the policy was stupid - trust your intuition and find better people to work for.
That doesn't make any sense. Both the Wikipedia and the EFF are non-profit organizations that exist to serve the community. They both serve very valuable and useful purposes. I'm not going to deny that if you have 50 bucks to give, that 50 bucks will do more good for our rights as American citizens in the hands of the EFF, but that doesn't mean an additional 10 or 20 bucks to support the valuable service of the Wikipedia is wrong. You could just as validly state that the EFF should learn to cater to special interests and sell their services.
Asking for donations, as the EFF does, and as Wikipedia now is, can be a legitimate way for a non-profit to sustain itself and service the community. Some services by their nature are better provided by for-profit entities, but I don't see that you've made a logical argument that Wikipedia must be one of those.
Because Brittanica online is 60 dollars a year, or 10 dollars a month? Because Wikipedia is a cooperative community effort, not a for-profit entity with a "failed business model"?
I realize how many times I've either checked something on wikipedia, or Googled for something only to find myself reading the best general purpose article on a subject on wikipedia. That's worth my 10 dollar donation to help keep things going.
Wikipedia isn't just some other site begging for money, and they aren't asking for money for their content (though it's worth something, certainly, it's free to all - and Free too, I think) - their load is so huge, they really need thousands of dollars for their servers. I'd rather give them my 10 bucks than deal with the unpleasant alternatives, like ads plastered everywhere, or seeing wikipedia go away.
I don't get this. People bring much of this interruptedness upon themselves. Ya know what, when I don't want to get cell phone calls, I turn off my cell phone or just turn off the ringer and don't answer it. I will check my messages when I feel like it and get back to somebody when I get a chance. Email, polluted as it is by spam, is by design a non-interruptive form of communication. Sure, I'm as addicted as the next guy - but if I have work to do or I'm focused on something intently, I'll go 3, 4 hours without checking my email.
IM is no different. It's just that IM is by design an interruptive form of communication. This just makes it all the more important that you don't leave it on all day long like many people do. If you leave your IM client on and complain that people keep interrupting you, I have no sympathy. There are some companies these days that seem to think using IM for work is a good idea. If somebody in the office wants to get in touch with you, they should walk over to your cube, or call you on your office phone. If it's not important enough for that, then an email is a better idea.
Check your email once every few hours, no more. If you must more often, for work, at least try to reeducate people - don't reply to emails immediately, train them to use more direct forms of communication when they need an immediate reply. Only turn on your IM client in the evenings when you don't expect to do productive work, and are just surfing the web. Learn to turn off your cell phone, and make sure the people you work with understand the rules for contacting you outside of work hours - leave a message, you'll get back to them. Be in control of your life and your time, you don't need some magic technotool, just a little self-restraint and discipline.
Dude, if you live on the Upper West Side, can you tell me which bars the 6 foot tall Brazilian supermodels hang out at? I'm serious, I would love to know. I always thought I had to go downtown to find that vibe (with the possible exception of the Hudson Hotel).
Don't worry, I promise not to talk about anime with them. Or Slashdot.
We used to play Dreamcast at work on a decent DLP projector all the time. The quality was absolutely amazing, and it was projected onto a 5'x5' (roughly) screen in a big conference room (no windows or extraneous light source), with a subwoofer and sound system we'd cart in. We'd also sometimes watch movies on it after work. Honestly, the experience was vastly superior to most home TV setups.
You mean an "unbiased" industry analyst? The problem is that everybody needs their bills paid by somebody. And these days pretty much everybody in the computer industry has some interests tied up with either Microsoft or Linux (seeing as how most of the old Unix players are becoming Linux players as well - IBM, SGI, (sometimes) HP, Sun...).
It takes a lot of time and money to do very thorough analyses of operating systems, hardware and enterprise apps. So that money has to come from somewhere. It would be all well and good to say "hi, we're an independent research and analysis lab, we'll write unbiased reports about the state of the industry", but somebody has to fund that shit. And pretty much all that money can be traced back one way or another to some of the big companies in the business who can afford to throw it around for marketing benefits - like Microsoft or IBM.
In a perfect world, all the customers and potential customers of software would get together and each chip in a little bit of money to fund good, unbiased research. But like in the world of politics, it's easier to get a few special interest groups who have a lot at stake together than to get hundreds or thousands of parties who each have a little at stake to cooperate.
You forgot the most important one. Don't buy one-way tickets, if you can help it. As retarded as it is, if you get two separate one ways, or are doing a three-legged trip with three one way tickets, you are going to get anal-probed at every one.
You know, they flag you with the "XXX" or whatever on your boarding pass, and you get the full treatment. Yes, my sample size is large - I think I've done 12 such flights (mostly part of three legged trips where I was combining a business with a personal trip), and EVERY single one of the 12 had the same mindnumbing, time-wasting results. I'd almost rather just pay for more tickets, it's faster.
Now if somebody can honestly explain how the hell THIS helps fight terrorism, I'd like to hear about it. I'm sure if Osama bin Laden is footing the bill, the 200 dollar difference between round-trip and one-way just isn't going to make a fuck-bit of a difference. If they assigned an added risk factor for one-way flight, I'd buy it, but by clogging the system by flagging EVERYBODY with a one-way, they make it incredibly obvious how to avoid getting the heavy-search treatment and thereby make it substantially easier to commit terrorist acts.
Very good question. I just found this link which seems to indicate they think spread is either maternal (before birth or through mother's milk I guess), or "lateral", I guess meaning from other deers, and they cite saliva as a vector.
Presumably this means it's substantially more transmissible than Mad Cow Disease because it accumulates in other tissues outside of the brain and central nervous system. Or it means they are lying to us about the possible transmission vectors for Mad Cow Disease and that BSE can possibly be transmitted through vectors besides brain tissue.
The potentially unpleasant conclusions for the safety of our food supply are left as an exercise to the reader.
IANACROPS (I Am Not A Cancer Researcher Or Prion Scientist), but I strongly disagree that curing prionic diseases is on par with curing cancer. Cancer consists of a large variety of possible cellular mutations in growth control, protective and other signalling mechanisms. Curing it requires complete mastery of cellular signalling and control mechanisms taking into account all possible genetic variations in the affected person or animal, AND all the possible mutation sites that can lead to cancer.
Curing a single kind of prionic disease requires creating a substance that catalyzes a reverse transformation from the variant (prionic) protein form to the normal protein form. Since the original transformation is possible, the reverse transformation is surely also possible, and can probably be made energetically favorable with the right kind of agents. While it may be easier to describe than to implement, I still think it sounds a lot easier than curing cancer, and not out of reach of current biotechnology research.
Pascal's Wager implicitly assumes that God, being a munificent fellow, is understanding if you don't get the particulars right. It's certainly not a very good argument for following the letter of law of any given religion. This is why it's described as a theist argument, not an argument for Christianity.
The concept that belief itself is more important than practice is a rather American and Protestant sort of religious belief, and is quite compatible with the kind of theism that these same people justify. So I don't really see the merit in the kind of argument you reference - except as a counter to religious zealots who think their religion is right, they are going to heaven, and anybody else whose practices differ in any way is going to hell.
I'm not the one popping a blood vessel here, nor am I the one trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. For some reason, you want to keep insisting that you have won an argument that we have never had (hopefully you're just kidding), since we don't actually seem to disagree about anything substantive.
You are wrong on every point. First, you didn't comment on what I wrote, you commented on your embellishment and misinterpretation of what I wrote, as I already explained.
You contrast several phrases taken out of context from my post with Pascal's Wager to make it sound like I was arguing that statement rather than explaining somebody else's point of view (which is clear form the context).
Then you attack me on a misspelling I made (existence->existance, yes, I switched a letter, forgive me, I was typing faster than I was thinking), and try to discredit me by making it look like I made two errors in a row (when the first word was marked in the original text with quotation marks for its obvious creative construction). You also ignored the second part of my sentence to make my statement sound more facile than it was. I'm sure there exist other possible arguments out there beyond the two I mentioned, but those two lines of reasoning seemed to be prevalent in the first several essays a quick Googling turns up. Not that I'm sure why I'm supposed to care, you seem to be trying to convince me to take a philisophical or logical position, which I never intended to do.
I made a simple psychological observation which was in part similar to Pascal's Wager. The logical inconsistencies or critiques possible of Pascal's Wager has no impact on the points I was trying to make. If you disagree with my points or don't think that many Americans are subconsciously (or consciously) motivated by similar thinking, then fine, you are free to disagree. But please don't try to construct a straw man so you can knock it down.
Do they believe it or do they SAY they believe it when they are polled? Come on, that's the whole point I was making. The little indoctrinated subconscious voice tells them they should profess their belief. Yet the way they live their lives on a daily basis indicates they don't believe in God, the devil, heaven or hell at all.
I do live in New York (and strangely, I have lived in Boston and near San Francisco in the past as well). But I've also lived in Vermont and Florida (oh wait, I guess those are also dens of nutty liberalism). Gee wait a second, maybe all the parts of America that count and produce value have a bunch of those nutty liberals (incidentally, by the standards of people here in New York, I'm a moderate conservative because I don't believe in the perpetual welfare state).
No, Pascal's wager is structured as an argument for theism over atheism. I am not arguing for theism, just explaining the American version of theism and what psychological factors I think lie behind it. Don't confuse normative statements with positive statements.
If you read various refutations of Pascal's wager, they seem to rely on "disproofs" of God's existance (by which they mean of course disproof of various Christian concepts of God as "all-knowing" or "all-loving" or whatever) by proving the logical inconsistency of simultaneous expression of various characteristics of God, or arguing about the meaning of belief. I don't think most Americans or people in general experience cognitive dissonance at holding logically inconsistent views of God in their head, so I don't think this abrogates the value of Pascal's wager to explain their psychological justification. Furthermore, I don't think somebody has to have a belief to profess it when asked in a poll.
Huh, that'd odd. While I agree that there are quite a few nutty American creationists out in the Midwest and the South, the majority of Americans don't consider their religious faith and their acceptance of modern science and the scientific method to be at odds with each other (where "faith" is used the way Kierkegaard defined it - belief in something which we lack proof or evidence for).
I also think most polls on religion fail to capture realistic world views. Think about it - the cost of professing belief in God is very low. The cost of leading a lifestyle strictly in accordance with biblical tenets is very high. If there is no God, your professed belief in life certainly won't make a hoot of a difference after you are dead and gone, but if there is, perhaps it will matter to him (in particular with the Christian conception of God). Thus many Americans will tell you they believe in God. Quite a few (though far, far fewer) might even tell you they believe the Bible is literally true. And yet these same people will almost without exception not lead very Godly devout lives. The real nutters, the evolution deniers, Bible thumping science-rejecters - those people constitute closer to 5% of the population than 90%. And most of those people are just too dumb to rectify the inconsistency of all the scientific and technological devices they use in their day-to-day lives with their religious rejection of modern science.
A scientist of course would tell you there's not much evidence to support the existence of "God" in the Judeo-Christian sense. But I've never met a scientist who would tell you that the lack of such proof constitutes a disproof. And any economist would probably give you the explanation I provided above.:)
Let me guess, you just need a few thousand dollars in "legal assistance" to help you "reclaim" your lost wages, which you will then offer to split with your "business partner".
Sorry, just kidding, I couldn't resist. Getting fucked by an employer is pretty suck - happened to a friend to the tune of $20,000 when he was asked by his employer to postpone his wages for a few weeks, then a few more weeks, etc. for several months until he finally told them to shove it and got a lawyer (he got his money eventually).
In general, I agree with you, but you have to consider that many of the people who get taken are eldery retirees. In many cases, these people's mental faculties aren't what they were when they were younger. The elderly are unfortunately often the target of overt scams because of this very fact, and because they often have retirement nest eggs.
There really needs to be stronger international enforcement on these scams. These scammers deserve to be taken out with extreme prejudice.
I wonder how many other former Cypherpunks readers/lurkers hang out on Slashdot? Probably quite a few. It's amazing to think about the influence that list and the culture that grew out of it had on the growth of the Internet and the techie culture of the net.
It's pretty amazing to think now that for a number of years it looked like strong crypto was going the way of the dodo bird.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I don't see what you're talking about in the Astrology entry. It's not a very long or in-depth entry, but it seems to be fairly accurate and neutral to me. It explains what astrology is, differentiates it from astronomy, and explains that many scientists don't feel there are any supportable hypotheses in astrology, but despite that many people do believe in it. These are all factual statements, not really beliefs. Personally, I think astrology is bullshit, and I bet most Slashdot readers do too, but it wouldn't really be very encyclopedia-like to say "we all know astrology is bullshit" in a wikipedia entry. It's probably sufficient to say that most scientists think it's bullshit and that it fails to present any disprovable hypotheses and thus isn't really science at all.
Coming by in person is more of an investment in time, and picking up the phone and calling somebody is as well. Generally, I've found that people make this investment in time when the need is there, and know not to abuse it. Furthermore, if you are busy/on the phone/whatever you are "unavailable" for in person discussion too. There are always times when you are going to be unavailable, that's just something other people have to learn to deal with, and again, it sets up the importance threshold - if it's really critical, they can wait 5 minutes to talk to you, otherwise, they can fire you an email saying they need to talk when you have a chance.
I think IM is too distracting - people know not to call you at work unless it's important, but people never seem to have the same kind of compunction about IMing people at work. Just my observations. I guess we could just try to "educate" everybody that IM should not be abused, but that's just not the way people seem to naturally use the medium. I don't see any obvious benefit to using it in the workplace, and while I wouldn't object to others using it, I'm almost certain I'd find that they were mostly using it to chat with friends and not to get actual work done.
Using read-only mirrors, even just as front ends that passed users through to the real database to do updates, would probably solve all the realistic scaling issues too. Or they could partition their database onto separate systems by subject, since I don't imagine their are any real data interdependencies between subjects in a Wiki system.
You are definitely dead-on - it sounds like they did manage themselves and you out of a job. In the future, I'd recommend you see managers who are so short sighted that they want to constantly nag and harrass their employees as a clear indicator of a project/company destined for failure and avoid them at all costs. Instead of getting yourself reprimanded by ignoring explicit instructions, float your resume around and find another job or transfer to a different group if you're in a big enough company. It was obvious to you that the policy was stupid - trust your intuition and find better people to work for.
Asking for donations, as the EFF does, and as Wikipedia now is, can be a legitimate way for a non-profit to sustain itself and service the community. Some services by their nature are better provided by for-profit entities, but I don't see that you've made a logical argument that Wikipedia must be one of those.
Because Brittanica online is 60 dollars a year, or 10 dollars a month? Because Wikipedia is a cooperative community effort, not a for-profit entity with a "failed business model"?
Wikipedia isn't just some other site begging for money, and they aren't asking for money for their content (though it's worth something, certainly, it's free to all - and Free too, I think) - their load is so huge, they really need thousands of dollars for their servers. I'd rather give them my 10 bucks than deal with the unpleasant alternatives, like ads plastered everywhere, or seeing wikipedia go away.
Ooops, that should be "you're" not "your" (I know I'll get grammar-nazied on that one)- duh. That's what I get for hitting submit without previewing.
IM is no different. It's just that IM is by design an interruptive form of communication. This just makes it all the more important that you don't leave it on all day long like many people do. If you leave your IM client on and complain that people keep interrupting you, I have no sympathy. There are some companies these days that seem to think using IM for work is a good idea. If somebody in the office wants to get in touch with you, they should walk over to your cube, or call you on your office phone. If it's not important enough for that, then an email is a better idea.
Check your email once every few hours, no more. If you must more often, for work, at least try to reeducate people - don't reply to emails immediately, train them to use more direct forms of communication when they need an immediate reply. Only turn on your IM client in the evenings when you don't expect to do productive work, and are just surfing the web. Learn to turn off your cell phone, and make sure the people you work with understand the rules for contacting you outside of work hours - leave a message, you'll get back to them. Be in control of your life and your time, you don't need some magic technotool, just a little self-restraint and discipline.
Don't worry, I promise not to talk about anime with them. Or Slashdot.
We used to play Dreamcast at work on a decent DLP projector all the time. The quality was absolutely amazing, and it was projected onto a 5'x5' (roughly) screen in a big conference room (no windows or extraneous light source), with a subwoofer and sound system we'd cart in. We'd also sometimes watch movies on it after work. Honestly, the experience was vastly superior to most home TV setups.
It takes a lot of time and money to do very thorough analyses of operating systems, hardware and enterprise apps. So that money has to come from somewhere. It would be all well and good to say "hi, we're an independent research and analysis lab, we'll write unbiased reports about the state of the industry", but somebody has to fund that shit. And pretty much all that money can be traced back one way or another to some of the big companies in the business who can afford to throw it around for marketing benefits - like Microsoft or IBM.
In a perfect world, all the customers and potential customers of software would get together and each chip in a little bit of money to fund good, unbiased research. But like in the world of politics, it's easier to get a few special interest groups who have a lot at stake together than to get hundreds or thousands of parties who each have a little at stake to cooperate.
You know, they flag you with the "XXX" or whatever on your boarding pass, and you get the full treatment. Yes, my sample size is large - I think I've done 12 such flights (mostly part of three legged trips where I was combining a business with a personal trip), and EVERY single one of the 12 had the same mindnumbing, time-wasting results. I'd almost rather just pay for more tickets, it's faster.
Now if somebody can honestly explain how the hell THIS helps fight terrorism, I'd like to hear about it. I'm sure if Osama bin Laden is footing the bill, the 200 dollar difference between round-trip and one-way just isn't going to make a fuck-bit of a difference. If they assigned an added risk factor for one-way flight, I'd buy it, but by clogging the system by flagging EVERYBODY with a one-way, they make it incredibly obvious how to avoid getting the heavy-search treatment and thereby make it substantially easier to commit terrorist acts.
Presumably this means it's substantially more transmissible than Mad Cow Disease because it accumulates in other tissues outside of the brain and central nervous system. Or it means they are lying to us about the possible transmission vectors for Mad Cow Disease and that BSE can possibly be transmitted through vectors besides brain tissue.
The potentially unpleasant conclusions for the safety of our food supply are left as an exercise to the reader.
Curing a single kind of prionic disease requires creating a substance that catalyzes a reverse transformation from the variant (prionic) protein form to the normal protein form. Since the original transformation is possible, the reverse transformation is surely also possible, and can probably be made energetically favorable with the right kind of agents. While it may be easier to describe than to implement, I still think it sounds a lot easier than curing cancer, and not out of reach of current biotechnology research.
If somebody got you deodorant, don't you think they were trying to send you a message?
The concept that belief itself is more important than practice is a rather American and Protestant sort of religious belief, and is quite compatible with the kind of theism that these same people justify. So I don't really see the merit in the kind of argument you reference - except as a counter to religious zealots who think their religion is right, they are going to heaven, and anybody else whose practices differ in any way is going to hell.
I hope your holiday is happy too.
You contrast several phrases taken out of context from my post with Pascal's Wager to make it sound like I was arguing that statement rather than explaining somebody else's point of view (which is clear form the context).
Then you attack me on a misspelling I made (existence->existance, yes, I switched a letter, forgive me, I was typing faster than I was thinking), and try to discredit me by making it look like I made two errors in a row (when the first word was marked in the original text with quotation marks for its obvious creative construction). You also ignored the second part of my sentence to make my statement sound more facile than it was. I'm sure there exist other possible arguments out there beyond the two I mentioned, but those two lines of reasoning seemed to be prevalent in the first several essays a quick Googling turns up. Not that I'm sure why I'm supposed to care, you seem to be trying to convince me to take a philisophical or logical position, which I never intended to do.
I made a simple psychological observation which was in part similar to Pascal's Wager. The logical inconsistencies or critiques possible of Pascal's Wager has no impact on the points I was trying to make. If you disagree with my points or don't think that many Americans are subconsciously (or consciously) motivated by similar thinking, then fine, you are free to disagree. But please don't try to construct a straw man so you can knock it down.
I do live in New York (and strangely, I have lived in Boston and near San Francisco in the past as well). But I've also lived in Vermont and Florida (oh wait, I guess those are also dens of nutty liberalism). Gee wait a second, maybe all the parts of America that count and produce value have a bunch of those nutty liberals (incidentally, by the standards of people here in New York, I'm a moderate conservative because I don't believe in the perpetual welfare state).
If you read various refutations of Pascal's wager, they seem to rely on "disproofs" of God's existance (by which they mean of course disproof of various Christian concepts of God as "all-knowing" or "all-loving" or whatever) by proving the logical inconsistency of simultaneous expression of various characteristics of God, or arguing about the meaning of belief. I don't think most Americans or people in general experience cognitive dissonance at holding logically inconsistent views of God in their head, so I don't think this abrogates the value of Pascal's wager to explain their psychological justification. Furthermore, I don't think somebody has to have a belief to profess it when asked in a poll.
I also think most polls on religion fail to capture realistic world views. Think about it - the cost of professing belief in God is very low. The cost of leading a lifestyle strictly in accordance with biblical tenets is very high. If there is no God, your professed belief in life certainly won't make a hoot of a difference after you are dead and gone, but if there is, perhaps it will matter to him (in particular with the Christian conception of God). Thus many Americans will tell you they believe in God. Quite a few (though far, far fewer) might even tell you they believe the Bible is literally true. And yet these same people will almost without exception not lead very Godly devout lives. The real nutters, the evolution deniers, Bible thumping science-rejecters - those people constitute closer to 5% of the population than 90%. And most of those people are just too dumb to rectify the inconsistency of all the scientific and technological devices they use in their day-to-day lives with their religious rejection of modern science.
A scientist of course would tell you there's not much evidence to support the existence of "God" in the Judeo-Christian sense. But I've never met a scientist who would tell you that the lack of such proof constitutes a disproof. And any economist would probably give you the explanation I provided above.
Sorry, just kidding, I couldn't resist. Getting fucked by an employer is pretty suck - happened to a friend to the tune of $20,000 when he was asked by his employer to postpone his wages for a few weeks, then a few more weeks, etc. for several months until he finally told them to shove it and got a lawyer (he got his money eventually).
There really needs to be stronger international enforcement on these scams. These scammers deserve to be taken out with extreme prejudice.
It's pretty amazing to think now that for a number of years it looked like strong crypto was going the way of the dodo bird.