and Justin E. H. Smith is now a top seller of non-fungible tokens: https://mintable.app/u/jehsmith/sold-item-list
Can someone give me an example?
In English, there’s no way to distinguish if a brother- or sister-in-law is on your family’s side, or your spouse’s family’s side. For example: my sister’s husband is my brother in law, but so is my partner’s brother.
I had a colleague at work repeatedly refer to his “brother-in-law.” I just assumed he was speaking about his wife’s brother. Then I learned he’s not married, and he was actually referring to his sister’s husband.
EDIT: Seeing all these wonderful comments of in-law differentiators, a commenter pointed out that it might be more interesting to ask for examples of other languages that don’t have any distinctions!
I roughly understand that it's an ontological distinction between a general 'thing' and a particular concrete instance of it...so a dingo puppy is a token of the type 'dingo'. But how concrete/physical does it have to be? For example, I'm doing an essay re: the Holocaust and could I say that the Holocaust is a token of the type 'genocide'?
Thanks in advance :)
Because I actually did it, I wasted my red cert to bought eight 5* supporter tokens and four 6* supporter tokens to increasing Mayer and Magallan potential. Also I bought Mayer and Magallan dupe when both of them are available to buy in gold cert shop, now my Mayer is reach Pot6 while Magallan is Pot3. I have little regret when I did that, but my happiness is immeasurable because my most favorite operators are reach maximum power (Magallan hasn't, but I will try my best to Pot6 her one day).
We wouldn't have to wait anymore for Exodus to add every single ERC-20 token there is one by one.
Also there'd be a lot less questions and complaints by people not understanding that some supported assets don't have their own blockchain and why they need another asset to pay the fees to send them.
(Finally, add something like WalletConnect, so we can make full use of all our coins and tokens.)
Other wallets already do it, it'd save you a lot of work in the long run and it'd make your users happy. It's a no-brainer, really.
Im not 100% sure but im 90%+ sure that the distinction was listed in either the wiki or menu when I first joined. Now it seems to be gone. I wanted to quote the definition to explain to someone the different types. Has anyone else noticed this?
PS if Im missing it please correct me.
Obviously not an important question, but when curiosity strikes....
Like take a 100grand bar, chocolate and carmel. Compare it to say.. gummy bears. Much sweeter and of course fruity flavored.
They're both "sweet" but not in the same way. I always view chocolate and carmel as a sort of almost "savory-sweet" and fruity things like starburst or Skittles as "sweet-sweet".
Just wondering if there's an actual distinction.
So, u/andero asked about my thoughts about this on another post the other day, and here's where I'm at with this, and similar ideas. I haven't had as much time for reddit lately as I'd like, but I've been thinking about these issues for a long time and I thought this would be a good time to try to say something more in depth about it, since this really goes to a longstanding issue/debate in the literature about schizoid phenomena. I posted this as a reply to his initial post on this, but I expanded it a little here so it would make more sense especially with regard to what I'm saying about Theodore Millon's perspective on this stuff.
So, the Type 1 vs. Type 2 distinction being proposed I read as basically analogous to Theodore Millon's distinction between SzPD and AvPD. If you read the relevant chapters (the SRA Avoidant and the AAS Schizoid) in the text Disorders of Personality Introducing a DSM/ICD Spectrum from Normal to Abnormal, you'll find this. Thus, I'm really going to be writing here mainly to critique Millon's views, a critique that I have been developing in my mind and in notes to myself over the past six months or so (and that I've made various allusions to in other comments on the sub).
Millon basically argues that schizoid PD'd patients show some kind of intrinsic, inborn, inherent deficit which may or may not be mediated by DNA or genetics (Millon does not specify the mechanism). He argues further that schizoid patients who show this proposed etiology also show a supposedly related a lack of interest in relationships and general anhedonia, basically. He does not present evidence for this, he simply states that this is the case. There's not really any particularly convincing reason to draw this link, and to then take the next step, which is to say that patients who are more conflicted in how they experience their life and their attitude to relationships -- that is, that they want them but are afraid of them -- have a different etiology (childhood trauma) and a whole different category of disorder (avoidant PD). I don't think it makes much sense to draw such a clear and distinct link between one etiological factor -- some vague intrinsic or inborn "deficit" (which he does not clearly define, because, again, there's simply no research on this at all) and an experience of ego-syntonic lack of interest in relationships on one hand, and on the other hand, another etiological factor -- childhood trauma -- which supposedly always leads to a con
... keep reading on reddit ➡As in, is there some quality that makes light light besides that we can see it, and some animals can see some UV/IR so we added that as well? Or is there some quality that separates light (including UV and IR) from x-rays, radiowaves, etc?
Also wondering: Do rainbows contain x-rays, microwaves, etc., or at least would - if the atmosphere didn't stop them? Would the mechanism for seeing ranges of x-ray, microwave, etc have to be fundamentally different in eyes, should animals evolve to see them?
STL Fed
- The conceptual distinction between payments methods that are based on tokens (e.g., coins) and payments systems that are based on accounts (e.g., debit cards) is pretty well entrenched in discussions of payments economics.1 For example, here is an important difference between the two types of arrangements:
>When you pay with an account, the crucial question for the recipient is your identity: “Are you really the account holder?”
>
>When you pay with a token, your identity is irrelevant; instead, the crucial question for the recipient is: “Is this object I’m receiving real or counterfeit?”
- But I regularly hear computer science professionals say that the distinction between tokens and accounts is meaningless—or more charitably, that it is irrelevant [...] I have sympathy with this reaction, because it usually comes when some ill-informed company executive has asked the computer specialist, “Should we make our proposed electronic money a token-based system or an account-based system?” If the computer expert’s specialty is the guts of the system, then as far as she or he is concerned the distinction is meaningless; one could say that at the base, all the systems are accounts (or one could say all systems are tokens or all systems are both).
- And as long as people continue to think along the lines of traditional payments methods and the traditional distinctions between them, the legal and institutional structures will continue to do so. So if your company advertises its application as “Birthday Coins” and people rely on that description, a judge might not let you get away with saying “No, your honor, they are really accounts.” That’s why I think it’s a mistake to claim, as many do, that we mustn’t describe any new electronic payments arrangement (e.g., Bitcoin) as a “token” because deep down they are all “really accounts.”3
There are two types of people when it comes to crypto in a bear market.
- The panic sellers that sell when their portfolio is at a 5-10% loss, to protect their capital.
These guys think that if they protect their capital, they can take advantage of a bigger crash. These guys also have PTSD from the stories of people who bought crypto in the early days and never saw their alts recover.
OR
- The people that HODL, even if the market has tanked a lot and their profit is about to turn into a loss.
These guys think that if they HODL, it will come back.
...
I'm a HODLer.
https://preview.redd.it/j7lkj7cyqh581.png?width=828&format=png&auto=webp&s=b5c42009a4bda832ec979ed19d4f2b7c66ad96e8
https://preview.redd.it/mbx6gsgpq5681.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=bf7288c52006bfedb921d36581441d75b53e3aac
