Hello! Please check your Skype!

I kept thinking about this lately.

I know merit sources are generally thorough with analyzing posts from all ranks, as they should be.

However, I was thinking if it would be a good idea to have merit sources dedicated only to low ranks (Newbies and Jr. Members), from the following reasons:

- I saw often that merit sources keep saying they are out of sMerits. Sometimes this implies not just without the sMerits received for being merit sources, but also without the sMerits they received as being regular users. Thus, I think there are either too few merit sources or their sMerits received for being merit sources is too low. Having merit sources looking only for low rank members would imply: (1) more merit sources and (2) a certain amount of merit going directly to low rank members. If the current merit sources give their sMerits to all ranks, once they are out of sMerits they can't give merit to a low rank member, even if they would intend to do that (of course, considering the respective user has a post deserving a merit).

- considering that current merit sources remain very often without sMerits, if there is a number of such sources dedicated only to lower ranks, all the other merit sources could concentrate eventually on higher ranks. For example: a merit source won't have the feeling of "guilty conscience" in case he / she wants to merit a low rank user and he / she remained without sMerits, knowing that even if he / she can't award himself / herself the respective user, several merit sources dedicated to low ranks are out there and there are high chances that the respective user will still be rewarded.

What do you think?

Unfortunately, there is no possible way to have a thread removed from "Show new replies to your posts". I asked that question also in December last year (see this topic and the replies #9 - #18: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5209358.msg53336527#msg53336527).

bitmover, for example, said that "Show new replies to your posts" is buggy. Others suggested to try to use "Watchlist". I did, but I couldn't get accommodated with it, thus I kept using "Show new replies to your posts".

For a time I thought I found a workaround, but, unfortunately, it didn't work (mentioned also in one of my replies of the above mentioned topic).

So it is as it as You can continue using this forum option or you can try also the "Watchlist". Alternatively, if you want to see the mentions to your name, you can use Piggy's notification bot (when it works ).

I hope this helps.

First of all, congrats Rikafip! That was really impressive - to get 13 points! You rocked, man! Congrats!

Also congrats to Jawhead999 and peter0425, for winning 2nd and 3rd places!

This contest was really fun and I long waited for the Oscars Also, I want to thank to OP for organizing it!

Besides, I want to say that I was very impressed by peter's fairness, as I did not expect that at all. Thank you for the merit and for your fair-play. I also want to congratulate you for having this fair-play spirit. Not many have it. Now, in the end, we can say that all the participants won

Rezervat

Lol... Now I feel stupid ))

Of course I did... Just that in the moment of writing the reply I had several other things in my head and I forgot c9mpletely about this. Well it feels very embarassing and also funny Now I'm laughing at myself.

However, thank you for pointing this, Loyce!

Yesterday (Feb. 11th, 2020) I received my last merit needed for Senior rank, the 250th. It was given to me by philipma1957, at ~16:54:59. According to LoyceV's tool, my first merit was received on Friday, Oct. 25th, 2019, at 11:55:50AM.

Having this data, it appears that it took me 109d 4h 59' 09" in order to reach the threshold for Sr. Member rank. Or, in other words, I obtained this achievement with 56d 8h 45' 41" before the date when my activity would allow the effective promotion (which will be on April 8th, 2020, at 01:40AM, unless theymos changes the rules for my account).

Unfortunately, LoyceV's site isn't updated yet to see the precise moment when philipma sent me that merit, thus the calculation is approximate (however, the error is of a few minutes - most likely, below 2 minutes). I'll update the precise time amount once that Loyce updates the info on the site as well.

--Edit: as philipma gave me that merit on Feb 12th at 16:55:25 (this is what I see in my Merit section, although LoyceV said he sees 15:55:25), there is only a difference of 25" from my upper statement. Meaning it took me 109d 4h 59' 34" in order to reach the threshold for Sr. Member rank (and, respectively, I obtained this achievement with 56d 8h 45' 15" before the date when my activity would allow).



I hope that meanwhile you lost that sarcasm and you understood that if you act decent and bring some help around, you will earn your merits. I see your number grew from 6 to 13 since Jan 28th, when you graciously expressed your sarcasm here, which means you more than doubled your amount of merits in 2 weeks. Still sarcastic? Still thinking that becoming a Legendary is impossible?

This is very interesting! I did not have knowledge about such situation. Meaning to have coupons with no expiration date, but which are disabled after BTC surpasses 10.000$ and also, other coupons with no expiration, which don't have any condition determined by the BTC price.

However, I believe these coupons (as the one you show us) are extremely rare. Maybe even more rare than the ones issued for broken ASICs or for purchases which were never delivered (or which didn't arrive at the destination).

Just for curiosity: do you have any coupons with no expiration date but which were disabled once BTC surpassed 10.000$ in value? If you have, can you post a picture of that coupon too? Just to see the difference between them (if any).

Anyway, related to the OP, if you want to sell the coupon, let me know

Am bucuria de a vă prezenta în limba română eseul "Anarhia Autarhiei Autoritare: Fii Propria Ta Autoritate", scris de nullius la data de 12 ianuarie 2020. Nullius este un membru emblematic al forumului, care a susținut mereu Bitcoin, doctrina crypto-anarhică din spatele acestuia, precum si gandirea celor care au constituit grupul Cypherpunk. Pe lângă cunoștințele vaste în programare și în criptografie, nullius a adus contribuții enorme acestui forum prin postări precum acest eseu, sau precum "Bitcoin: Fenomenul social", sau “Proiectul Anastasia: Bitcoinerii împotriva furtului de identitate -țeapa lui CSW”(traduse de asemenea în limba română, aici și aici). Țin pe această cale să îi mulțumesc încă o dată pentru toate cunoștințele pe care le împărtășește cu generozitate aici și sper ca înțelepciunea transmisă de el să fie de folos tuturor.

---

Autor: nullius
Topic original: The Anarchy of Authoritarian Autarchy: Be Your Own Authority

---

---

Chiar dacă agreez anarhia, strict vorbind, totuși resping sub orice formă anarhia gloatei.

Anarhia mea este cea a celor puțini, a aristocraților înnăscuți, care nu s-au născut spre a fi sclavi. Și doar prin anarhia individuală pot scăpa de tirania pe care gloatele, cu mentalitățile lor înnăscute de sclavi, au ales-o în mod deliberat și i-au votat existența prin intermediul greutății numerice.

Este anarhia celor care iubesc ordinea și care impun ordinea în primul rând lor înșiși: aceia care trăiesc pentru onoare și nu prin lege. Ei trebuie să devină legi pentru ei înșiși.

Este anarhia amoraliștilor care s-au ridicat mai presus de bine și rău pentru a sfărâma tabelul de valori a moralității de sclavi a gloatei, deschizând astfel drumul pentru propriul lor tabel de valori.

Este anarhia celor buni, care, fiind buni, rezistă pentru a onora din mândrie: căci cea mai sinceră moralitate este glorificarea de sine a celor mândri, ale căror judecăți despre alții onorează cel mai bine ceea ce văd în ei înșiși. Ei sunt aceia care ar îmbrățișa moartea în locul unei negări de sine precum dezonoarea – și nu ca pe un sacrificiu, ci ca pe un act de egoism pur: umilința este o dezonoare per se; -umilința înseamnă să fii dezonorabil și dezonorat; -“moarte în loc de dezonoare” este regula glorificării de sine a moralității întruchipate de cineva atât de lipsit de umilință încât pune mândria mai presus decât viața sa. (Și, într-adevăr, doar celui umil, supus, slab îi este frică de moarte: celui Laș.) Pentru cei a căror onoare este de fapt mândrie și a căror mândrie este onoare de sine, legea este de prisos, în cel mai bun caz; iar legea gloatei trebuie categoric respinsă.

Prin urmare, este o “autarhie autoritară” când este vorba de tine însuți. Nu respingeți autoritatea: fiți propria voastră autoritate.

---

Anarhia mea nu este aceea a celor neînsemnați, cu aspirații mărunte, plini de vicii, pizmași, josnici, infractori, nici a liotelor invidioase care ar distruge orice ar fi mai bun ca ele doar pentru a minimiza insulta implicită la propria lor inferioritate.

Nu este anarhia celor care pur și simplu își doresc să evite toate regulile, astfel încât să poată face ce le convine mai mult în orice moment. Nu este anarhia unui “rebel fără cauză”.

Într-adevăr, o astfel de anarhie a maselor dezordonate nu poate fi susținută și este autodistructivă în practică. Istoria arată că atunci când masele nu mai pot fi ținute în frâu, începe o orgie de nelegiuri violente în masă. Apoi, masele revin și vor ordine, din purul motiv al confortului personal și siguranței proprii, care sunt de altfel imposibile membrilor unei gloate scăpate de sub control. Aspectele pozitive și rezultatul sunt direct proporționale cu înțelepciunea eventualelor sisteme sau a liderilor de sistem care ar putea apărea în astfel de situații.

Și cum o gloată lipsită de minte nu poate face alegeri înțelepte, aceasta va avea tendința de a adopta orice sistem sau formă de conducere care s-ar mula mai bine pe ego-ul celor cu mintea scurtă. Această tendință ar putea fi exploatată puternic de liderii înțelepți, care obțin puterea pentru scopuri nobile, profitând pragmatic de prostia maselor. Totuși, tendința maselor este de a-i împuternici pe cei care le reprezintă cel mai bine în mod nativ. Și în practică, sistemul cu cea mai puternică chemare pentru mase este, desigur, democrația pe principiul “o oaie, un vot”. În consecință, oile aleg ca păstori pe cei care se prostituează mai bine în fața maselor, care au o politică de doi bani și care manipulează opinia majorității cu o propagandă vicleană.

Fiind un avantaj și nu un defect, prin construcție, democrația garantează că drojdia de la fund se ridică pentru a deveni gunoiul care plutește la suprafață. Tiranii din noua generație, încununați cu platitudini democratice, încep apoi să lege lumea cu lanțurile pe care gloata cu mentalitate de sclavi, le găsește a fi cele mai liniștitoare: supraveghere în masă și poliție militară pentru “a-i ține pe oameni în siguranță” față de sperietorile populare, taxarea sclavilor pentru “justiția economică” a “redistribuirii averilor”, legi pentru crimăgândit care să “împiedice ura”, războaie antiteroriste care să aducă binecuvântarea aceleiași “libertăți” unora care nu o vor si, pe partea cealaltă, distracții în social media care în mod activ fac o propagandă captivantă și supraveghează mulțimile în orice clipă.

---

Greșesc? Uitați-vă în jur! Uitați-vă cu ochii deschiși, cu inima împietrită și cu o minte dezghețată care chestionează fără milă toate premisele neexaminate despre care se spunea ca sunt tabu.

Este cu putință ca atâtea milioane de oameni, din atât de multe țări de pe glob, să voteze toți pe niște lideri și niște politici pe care în realitate să nu le dorească? Chiar așa? Sau cumva voi pur și simplu nu sunteți de acord cu ce doresc ei și vă proiectați propriile dorințe asupra lor, presupunând doar că ei trebuie să fie ca voi?

Dacă porniți de la premisa că “toți oamenii sunt egali”, atunci vă asumați de la bun început că dorințele voastre subiective sunt cel mai mic numitor comun pentru ce-și doresc toți oamenii de pretutindeni. Asta este o eroare fundamentală. Mediocrităților de joasă speță (sau mai rău) nu le pasă de nimic în afară de siguranța, de confortul de bază, de distracția ieftină și de canoanele emoționale pe care le vor apăra cu ochii închiși până la moarte.

Acești oameni nu se vor opune principiilor voastre înalte: ei nu au principii înalte și, mai mult, nu dețin capacitatea mentală de a avea principii înalte. Ei iau decizii individuale bazate pe mentalitatea de turmă și pe dogma pe care au învățat-o ca papagalii – dogma în care s-au înrădăcinat simțămintele și deci o dogmă apărată cu pasiunea oarbă a gândirii de gloată. Aceasta este o limitare congenitală și o realitate observată empiric, care nu poate fi râvnită prin fantezii despre “educarea” celor needucabili. Oile nu pot fi învățate să gândească, precum câinii nu pot fi dresați să cânte fragmente de operă. Într-adevăr, pentru cititorii cărora acest eseu li se adresează (ceilalți sunt irelevanți), o oaie nu poate fi dresată să fie ca tine mai mult decât ai putea fi tu învățat să devii o oaie fără minte; și este atât de absurd, delirant și fantastic de arogant să crezi că poți remodela masele după propria ta imagine. Ele sunt ceea ce sunt. Voi fiți voi înșivă, chiar dacă asta ar însemna să renunțați la dogma proslăvită de mase și să deveniți propriii voștri legiuitori.

Și, vai, cum e dogma asta!

Ar fi bine ca o dogmă să descindă dintr-un principiu înalt; însă principiile înalte și solide nu sunt nici necesare pentru realizarea eficace a unei dogme, nici suficiente pentru a impresiona modul de gândire al mulțimii. Astfel, pentru mase, “independența” și “libertatea” sunt doar niște vorbe-n vânt insipide care devin importante ori ca o scuză ipocrită pentru bombardarea unei țări spre a fi “eliberată”, ori ca o cauză pentru o indignare fățarnică dacă încerci să pui sub semnul întrebării “dreptul lor la opinie”. Toată lumea are dreptul la opinie! Și nu contează dacă opinia este copiată în mod necugetat de la formatorii de opinie din mass-media sau de la propagandiștii guvernului: ideea vădit absurdă că toată lumea are dreptul la opinie este o dogmă învățată, care are și avantajul că este pe placul ego-urilor mărunte ale celor mai puțin capabili de a-și forma singuri o opinie. Din acest motiv, nu lăsați pe niciunul să îndrăznească vreo erezie împotriva principiului de guvernare “o oaie, un vot”, această relicvă sacră pe care trebuie s-o venerați pe altarul maselor. Desigur, acest tip de afacere este pe deplin pe placul prelaților formatori de opinii.

Democrația nu este totuna cu trei lupi și o oaie care votează ce mănâncă la cină: este turma care votează supusă părerea ciobanului dspre lupi. Motiv pentru care lupii sunt o specie pe cale de dispariție.

---

Ce poți face când ești depășit numeric, fără arme și în minoritate față de grosul mulțimii, care, cum spunea și Goethe, s-a crezut în mod greșit “liberă” deoarece era îndreptățită să exprime opiniile formatorilor profesioniști de opinii, depășindu-l astfel pe Voltaire nu doar prin apărarea lanțurilor care le uneau, ci și având pretenția fățișă ca și tu să iubești, de asemenea, acele lanțuri?

Întâi și-ntâi, eliberați-vă de autoritatea morală a gloatei. Nu datorați nimic opiniilor maselor; ca urmare, legile care apar din opiniile de masă nu nicio autoritate asupra voastră. Pentru că nu sunteți de acord să fiți guvernați de voturile a milioane de antropoide care își doresc să fie prinse-n lanțuri – care sunt nerăbdătoare să simtă acele lanțuri, cât timp au căldură, mâncare și cât timp sunt delectate cum se cuvine. Voi sunteți propriii voștri legiuitori.

Prin urmare, este o “anarhie” precum cea a maselor și a așa-ziselor lor “guverne”, care spun adevărul la fel de mult pe cât îl spun și cele mai mari, mai înarmate și mai organizate găști de infractori. Nu respingeți autoritatea: fiți propria voastră autoritate.

---

Cele de mai sus reprezintă Partea 0. Când vor mai fi postate alte părți, voi edita acest text cu un link spre continuare. În curând: distincția dintre analiza mea și alte filosofii politice existente; intersecția dintre acest mod de gândire și crypto-anarhism; și mai multe…

Acesta este topicul meu despre “anarhie”. Moderarea va fi una autoritară și elitistă.

Thank you all for sharing your opinions! Much appreciated!

It is interesting to see so many people having so may opinions about each suggestion / question.

I updated the topic today, as two more questions came up my mind - one regarding humor and one regarding users which have enough merits to meet a minimum rank but don't have yet the activity required.

Besides, I'm also looking forward for yahoo's update, as he said he intends to add some more. Also regarding the statement regarding the campaign managers competences - can be done anything about that? Maybe have an election list for them similar to the DT system? What yahoo said was a truth, a truth hard to be digested but still a truth.

Hello Heisenberg63,

No, it doesn't mean it is scam. That was the rule for the coupons with no expiration date: to be valid only while BTC value is below 10.000$. Bitmain officially announced the rule when these coupons were issued, thus all the customers were aware of the rule.

Besides, it is not the first time when Bitmain sets a coupons validity determined by the BTC price. For example, in January - February 2019 some other coupons were circulating and their validity was also was based on BTC value. I don't remember exactly the threshold from that period, but I remember precisely that rule.

If I may, a question to you: you seemed very surprised by my post. Did you have such coupons, with no expiration date, which were invalidated by Bitmain after BTC surpassed 10.000$?

Theymos already passed this number; look out for LoyceV

As I'm being the biggest movie watcher here (and I'm not kidding; I honestly don't think that anyone else spent so much from his / her life watching movies / TV series -- meaning several years) and as one who watched all Star Treks, I salute you! And I'll spread the word your words even more than I did til now!

(Somehow) Getting back on the subject (although it is VERY hard, due to latest involvements), I think now, that (one of my childhood idols) Captain Kirk is involved, nullius' words will be heared in the outer space! Even Klingonians will hear about this Pinocchio pretending to be Satoshi!

And no, I'm not kidding (I wouldn't DARE to troll nullius' posts)! If such a personality as Captain Kirk mentioned this identity theft; if such a Hollywood celebrity (which is way more well-known than anyone from this forum) speaks about this theft, then not only the entire world, but also the Klingonians, Vulcanians and other outer alien races will hear about it!

Honestly, I wouldn't EVER believe that an 88 years old man would be interested in this subject. But even if it's him, or someone administrating his Twitter, the word will still be spread! And regarding the mention to Anastasia (God rest her soul), I really believe that who is controlling that account looked here first! The coincidence is WAY too big!

---

I don't know the connection between CSW and Mt. Gox (and I'm ashamed of that). Maybe someone can share a link?

---

Gazeta Bitcoin, which is one of the fewest Romanian crypto-newspaper, called out this Pinocchio long years ago! [Edit: here is the proof! The article is from October 2017.]

---

In the end, one question remains: why can't we all sue him?

And this question brang into my mind a topic which I intend to write about Jullian Assange -- if we can help him too (coming soon). After all, he was (is) also one of the few true Cypherpunks. God knows how many years he has to live (IN JAIL!). But all of them will pass away. Maybe we can do something for the ones still alive. Forgive me nullius for this offtopic, but I couldn't stop myself from mentioning it.

Thank you both for sharing your opinions here!
Let's hear more!

After all, with group debating, with constructive discussion, greater benefit can be brought to the entire forum!

Don't forget that all of the above were just my suggestions / questions, not decisions


Thank you very much philipma, this is a historic event in my career here! I will always remember, as I also remember who gave me my first merits.

Update (11.02.2020):

- all the coupons expiring on January 31st, 2020 have already expired
- all the coupons which didn't have an expiration date were disabled, as BTC surpassed 10.000$ (Bitmain set previously this rule for them - to be disabled if BTC surpasses the value of 10.000$)
- at the moment, there are left only a very few amount of coupons, which were issued by Bitmain for those which didn't receive their purchase or to those which received broken equipment. These coupons expire at the end of February / March 2020.

I know this is a long shot but if you have such coupons, by chance, please let me know. I am still buying

Please write here in this topic or PM me.

Note: if you are a scammer, don't try your tricks on me - they won't work You can concentrate your "efforts" elsewhere. Here you would just lose your "precious" time.

Recently, I had this thought of opening a thread related to necessary, but also common sense rules for signature campaigns. I started writing it, but I never finished it from various reasons; however, recently something happened and determined me to finish this post.

So why would we need common sense rules for signature campaigns? For reducing the spam, for improving the posting quality and also for having a common sense and a consensus (similar to other common sense / consensus rules applied here - for example, the rules for ads, the rules for DT election, the rules for becoming a merit source etc.).

What determined me to finish writing this topic? I was part of the 777Coin campaign for the last 6 weeks - 5 under Hhampuz and 1 under CryptopreneurBrainBoss. In 5 weeks with Hhampuz, I had only 1 post denied. In one week under CryptopreneurbrainBoss I had 15 posts denied by him. Edit: apparently, that was a mistake of the manager and he solved it later.

The topic is not about CryptopreneurbrainBoss, nor about Hhampuz. It is about the fact that each campaign manager has his own standards and views, which are based on his subjectivism. As it can be seen from above, this subjectivism may vary a lot. Thus, maybe if we would have a consensus about campaigns too, several problems / questions / spams would be avoided.

---

And all these lead me to ask some suggestions / questions about common sense campaigns and participants rules, as it follows:

[1] All managers ask (or should ask) for "constructive posts". What are "constructive posts"? How can we define constructive posts? Should they be defined as "replies on the subject, no matter their length" (including one liners)? Or should they be considered constructive only if they meet a minimum character length? I saw that some managers accept small posts as being valid for their campaigns, while others don't. No matter if the posts are on subject and usefull; they just deny them. We need a consensus here.

[2] Should some boards be banned from any campaign? I saw that some managers say that posts in some sections are not accepted; other say that posts from other boards are not accepted. Can be a general rule for boards not accepted in any campaign? Example: ban all posts from Politic&Society and Off-topic boards.

[3] Should participants be accepted only if they meet a certain amount of merits in the past 1-2 months prior applying to the campaign (and also prior being accepted inside the campaign)? And another suggestion here, the merit number could be fixed for each kind of rank, but lower for low rank users and bigger for higher rank users. Currently, out of 21 signature campaigns, only 4 or 5 have a merit requirement; can such requirement be implemented for all campaigns? But I'm not talking about a trivial minimum threshold as the actual one is (5 merits); I'm talking about a serious threshold, such as 20-30 merits.

[4] Should participants be excluded from campaigns if they don't earn a minimum amount of merits per week? Furthermore, similar to (3): could this minimum threshold be a fixed number for a low rank, a bigger number for a higher rank and so on?

[5] Should be accepted inside any campaign only members of certain ranks (eg. minimum Senior users)? Several campaigns are oriented only to high rank users; why wouldn't be applied here a general rule to be accepted in all the campaigns only these kind of users?

[6] All campaigns have a minimum and a maximum posts number per week. Could these limits be fixed for all the campaigns? Example: have a minimum of 10 posts/week and a maximum number of 25 posts/week.

[7] All managers ask that participants don't have a negative trust; what if this rule would be improved to high rank users, meaning to be required to have a positive trust in order to be accepted?

 [8] Can there be set a common sense rule for maximum number of posts accepted per day? Example: only 5 posts per day to be taken into account. Currently, out of 21 signature campaigns, only one states clearly that it accepts maximum 7 posts per day, four state they accept maximum 8 posts per day, while 15 mention only that burst posting is not allowed, without giving any definition of burst posting. So what is "burst posting" then? In order to eliminate spam even more, can it be defined as a certain number of posts per day?

I'll update later the topic if other questions / suggestions come into my mind.

Edit -- two more questions / suggestions came into my mind:
[9] Should humor be accepted (should the posts involving humor be counted as eligible) if it is on topic, as a general rule, or should it be denied, also as a general rule?

[10] If there is a minimum rank required for being accepted, should be accepted in any campaign the users who have the merits neccesary for the respective rank, but which don't have yet the necessary activity?

Edit 2:
[11] Should it be a general rule to not be counted posts in topics older than a predetermined amount of time? Example: deny all posts in topic older than 12 months. This rule would be also for reducing spam. I remember that in Yobit's last day a user posted in a 9 years old topic (!!!) in order to earn a few cents more.

Edit 3:
[12] Should it be a general rule to not be allowed campaigns requiring participants to have a certain number of topics created in a week or requiring participants to have a certain number of posts in the first page(s) of a topic? Such a campaign is BlockZone and, apparently, many people blamed its requirements, as they may raise the amount of spam.

Bine punctat, 20kevin20!

Ar fi ideal sa nu mai existe acel impozit dupa trecerea unui interval de timp, insa sunt sanse aproape nule de a se intampla.

Referitor la celelalte probleme ridicate de tine, acestea se pot petrece oriunde in lume, nu doar aici. Si peste tot ar fi aceeasi problema; cum demonstrezi ca nu ai fost tu?

Insa toate acestea se intampla deoarece oamenii folosesc in mod gresit Bitcoin, cum am mai scris, de altfel. El nu a fost creat pentru specula (schimburi BTC <-> fiat), ci pentru a substitui banii traditionali. Daca nu ar exista aceste schimburi cu banii fiat, nu ar mai exista nici aceste probleme. Exista si aici insa o cale de mijloc:


In cazurile de mai sus iti poti pastra linistit anonimitatea, daca vrei sa mergi pe drumul acesta.

---

Furtul de identitate ar trebui demascat mereu, dupa cum bine a scris si nullius aici - Proiectul Anastasia: Bitcoinerii împotriva furtului de identitate -țeapa lui CSW. Si daca este facut la nivel inalt (cum ar fi cazurile Anastasia si Craig Wright), cu atat mai mult il pot practica si "simplii gainari".

Ar trebui sa ne coalizam cu totii impotriva acestor acte; fiecare isi poate aduce o contributie. Si poate, cand va exista efectiv un astfel de caz, omul afectat (si cercetat de organele de ancheta) ar putea sa-si demonstreze nevinovatia cu ajutorul eventualilor martori. Altfel, nu vad vreo solutie.

My longest shift was 21h, as far as I remember (8h was the normal shift, 1h of lunch break and 12h of overtime - including overnight).

However, several years I had periods of 3-4 consecutive months when I was working from Monday to Friday between 9AM-10PM and each weekend 8h/day.

So far, in ~13.5 years at the same company I achieved 5261h of overtime which, in normal time (~170 working hours per month) mean 30.94 months extra -- almost 2 years and 7 months of overtime.

I can't believe it sometimes...

- Edit: oh, and I forgot to mention - these were only the paid hours, those officialy counted. Besides them I have spent other hundreds of hours of overtime from dedication .

Aaand the Oscars are over! Here is the final list of the nominees and of the winners (with bold):

---

Best Picture:

• Ford v Ferrari – Peter Chernin, Jenno Topping and James Mangold
• The Irishman – Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, Jane Rosenthal, and Emma Tillinger Koskoff
• Jojo Rabbit – Carthew Neal and Taika Waititi
• Joker – Todd Phillips, Bradley Cooper and Emma Tillinger Koskoff
• Little Women – Amy Pascal
• Marriage Story – Noah Baumbach and David Heyman
• 1917 – Sam Mendes, Pippa Harris, Jayne-Ann Tenggren, and Callum McDougal
• Once Upon a Time in Hollywood – David Heyman, Shannon McIntosh and Quentin Tarantino
• Parasite – Kwak Sin-ae and Bong Joon-ho

Best Director:

• Martin Scorsese – The Irishman
• Todd Phillips – Joker
• Sam Mendes – 1917
• Quentin Tarantino – Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
• Bong Joon-Ho – Parasite

Best Actor in A Leading Role:

• Antonio Banderas – Pain and Glory as Salvador Mallo
• Leonardo DiCaprio – Once Upon a Time in Hollywood as Rick Dalton
• Adam Driver – Marriage Story as Charlie Barber
• Joaquin Phoenix – Joker as Arthur Fleck / The Joker
• Jonathan Pryce – The Two Popes as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio

Best Actress in a Leading Role:

• Cynthia Erivo – Harriet as Harriet Tubman
• Scarlett Johansson – Marriage Story as Nicole Barber
• Saoirse Ronan – Little Women as Josephine "Jo" March
• Charlize Theron – Bombshell as Megyn Kelly
• Renée Zellweger – Judy as Judy Garland

Best Actor in a Supporting role :

• Tom Hanks – A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood as Fred Rogers
• Anthony Hopkins – The Two Popes as Pope Benedict XVI
• Al Pacino – The Irishman as Jimmy Hoffa
• Joe Pesci – The Irishman as Russell Bufalino
• Brad Pitt – Once Upon a Time in Hollywood as Cliff Booth

Best Actress in a Supporting role:

• Kathy Bates – Richard Jewell as Barbara "Bobi" Jewell
• Laura Dern – Marriage Story as Nora Fanshaw
• Scarlett Johansson – Jojo Rabbit as Rosie Betzler
• Florence Pugh – Little Women as Amy March
• Margot Robbie – Bombshell as Kayla Pospisil

Best Original Screenplay:

• Knives Out – Rian Johnson
• Marriage Story – Noah Baumbach
• 1917 – Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns
• Once Upon a Time in Hollywood – Quentin Tarantino
• Parasite – Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won

Best Adapted Screenplay:

• The Irishman – Steven Zaillian based on the book I Heard You Paint Houses by Charles Brandt
• Jojo Rabbit – Taika Waititi based on the novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens
• Joker – Todd Phillips and Scott Silver based on the characters created by Bill Finger, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson
• Little Women – Greta Gerwig based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott
• The Two Popes – Anthony McCarten based on his play The Pope

Best Foreign Langage Film:

• Corpus Christi (Poland) in Polish – Directed by Jan Komasa
• Honeyland (North Macedonia) in Turkish[a] – Directed by Tamara Kotevska and Ljubomir Stefanov
• Les Misérables (France) in French – Directed by Ladj Ly
• Pain and Glory (Spain) in Spanish – Directed by Pedro Almodóvar
• Parasite (South Korea) in Korean – Directed by Bong Joon-ho

Best Documentary Feature:

• American Factory – Steven Bognar, Julia Reichert and Jeff Reichert
• The Cave – Feras Fayyad, Kirstine Barfod and Sigrid Dyekjær
• The Edge of Democracy – Petra Costa, Joanna Natasegara, Shane Boris and Tiago Pavan
• For Sama – Waad Al-Kateab and Edward Watts
• Honeyland – Ljubomir Stefanov, Tamara Kotevska and Atanas Georgiev

Best Animated Feature:

• How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World – Dean DeBlois, Bonnie Arnold and Brad Lewis
• I Lost My Body – Jeremy Clapin and Marc du Pontavice
• Klaus – Sergio Pablos, Jinko Gotoh and Marisa Román
• Missing Link – Chris Butler, Arianne Sutner and Travis Knight
• Toy Story 4 – Josh Cooley, Jonas Rivera and Mark Nielsen

Best Documentary Short:

• In the Absence – Yi Seung-Jun and Gary Byung-Seok Kam
• Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl) – Carol Dysinger and Elena Andreicheva
• Life Overtakes Me – John Haptas and Kristine Samuelson
• St. Louis Superman – Smriti Mundhra and Sami Khan
• Walk Run Cha-Cha – Laura Nix and Colette Sandstedt

Short Film Animated:

• Dcera (Daughter) – Daria Kashcheeva
• Hair Love – Matthew A. Cherry and Karen Rupert Toliver
• Kitbull – Rosana Sullivan and Kathryn Hendrickson
• Memorable – Bruno Collet and Jean-François Le Corre
• Sister – Siqi Song

Short Film Live action:

• Brotherhood – Meryam Joobeur and Maria Gracia Turgeon
• Nefta Football Club – Yves Piat and Damien Megherbi
• The Neighbors' Window – Marshall Curry[/bb]
• Saria – Bryan Buckley and Matt Lefebvre
• A Sister – Delphine Girard

Music (original Score):

• Joker – Hildur Guðnadóttir
• Little Women – Alexandre Desplat
• Marriage Story – Randy Newman
• 1917 – Thomas Newman
• Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker – John Williams

Music Original Song:

• "I Can't Let You Throw Yourself Away" from Toy Story 4 – Music and Lyrics by Randy Newman
• "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" from Rocketman – Music by Elton John; Lyrics by Bernie Taupin
• "I'm Standing with You" from Breakthrough – Music and Lyrics by Diane Warren
• "Into the Unknown" from Frozen II – Music and Lyrics by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez
• "Stand Up" from Harriet – Music and Lyrics by Joshuah Brian Campbell and Cynthia Erivo

Best Sound Editing:

• Ford v Ferrari – Donald Sylvester
• Joker – Alan Robert Murray
• 1917 – Oliver Tarney and Rachael Tate
• Once Upon a Time in Hollywood – Wylie Stateman
• Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker – Matthew Wood and David Acord

Best Sound mixing:

• Ad Astra – Gary Rydstrom, Tom Johnson and Mark Ulano
• Ford v Ferrari – Paul Massey, David Giammarco and Steven A. Morrow
• Joker – Tom Ozanich, Dean Zupancic and Tod Maitland
• 1917 – Mark Taylor and Stuart Wilson
• Once Upon a Time in Hollywood – Michael Minkler, Christian P. Minkler and Mark Ulano

Production Design:

• The Irishman – Production Design: Bob Shaw; Set Decoration: Regina Graves
• Jojo Rabbit – Production Design: Ra Vincent; Set Decoration: Nora Sopková
• 1917 – Production Design: Dennis Gassner; Set Decoration: Lee Sandales
• Once Upon a Time in Hollywood – Production Design: Barbara Ling; Set Decoration: Nancy Haigh
• Parasite – Production Design: Lee Ha-jun; Set Decoration: Cho Won-woo

Best Cinematography:

• The Irishman – Rodrigo Prieto
• Joker – Lawrence Sher
• The Lighthouse – Jarin Blaschke
• 1917 – Roger Deakins
• Once Upon a Time in Hollywood – Robert Richardson

Best Makeup and Hairstyling:

• Bombshell – Kazu Hiro, Anne Morgan and Vivian Baker
• Joker – Nicki Ledermann and Kay Georgiou
• Judy – Jeremy Woodhead
• Maleficent: Mistress of Evil – Paul Gooch, Arjen Tuiten and David White
• 1917 – Naomi Donne, Tristan Versluis and Rebecca Cole

Best Costume Design:

• The Irishman – Sandy Powell and Christopher Peterson
• Jojo Rabbit – Mayes C. Rubeo
• Joker – Mark Bridges
• Little Women – Jacqueline Durran
• Once Upon a Time in Hollywood – Arianne Phillips

Best Film Editing:

• Ford v Ferrari – Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker
• The Irishman – Thelma Schoonmaker
• Jojo Rabbit – Tom Eagles
• Joker – Jeff Groth
• Parasite – Yang Jin-mo

Best Visual Effects:

• Avengers: Endgame – Dan DeLeeuw, Matt Aitken, Russell Earl and Dan Sudick
• The Irishman – Pablo Helman, Leandro Estebecorena, Stephane Grabli, and Nelson Sepulveda
• The Lion King – Robert Legato, Adam Valdez, Andrew R. Jones and Elliot Newman
• 1917 – Guillaume Rocheron, Greg Butler, and Dominic Tuohy
• Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker – Roger Guyett, Neal Scanl
  

---

As far as I see, I guessed correctly 3 winners

Rooting means to get SuperUser access over your device, as Android is, at origins, derived from Linux.

To root or not to root your device is - more or less - similar with to mod or not to mod your PC. Modders think "why wouldn't I mod it, if I can do it?", while conservative ones think "why change it, if it works like that?".

Coming back to phones, enthusiasts, generally, tend to root their devices, as they are looking for full control. And indeed, having SU access gives you more powers compared to an user of a non-rooted phone, including, but not limited to, installing custom ROMs, uninstalling apps specific to the operating system or specific to the phone vendor (apps which can not be uninstalled otherwise), spoofing your MAC address or your IMEI etc.

On another hand, as in normal life, freedom of choice comes with a cost - losing your warranty (maybe the most important aspect: rooted phones don't have warranty anymore), chance of bricking the phone during the rooting process, installing various types of malware programs and so on.

Basically, you should not root your phone, unless (1) you really need it; (2) you are a phone expert; (3) although not an expert, you really know what you're doing.