Its the same as all the "we are a blockchain company" startups that popped up looking for a problem to solve with their tech rather than the right way round.
However, a lot of those got a bunch of investment or made some decent money in the short term. Very few are still around. We will see the same pattern here.
Well, Git's also not a blockchain at least in the way commonly meant by the term. But yeah, it'd be a pretty bad bank account (and an even worse way of doing money transfers.)
git is linear, if multiple users have a different main branch history you have a problem.
Pull requests in github is actually very similar conceptually to a consensus mechanism used in crypto currencies. Everyone has an identical copy of the main branch with an identical history of every commit in order, a PR is saying "I think this commit goes next" and, if you use code reviews, the PR approval is consensus.
Hah, sounds good. I still don't get your argument here, I would be curious to hear more.
My point is that git is a data store involving a genesis block (initial commit), blocks of changes/diff's, tracked in sequential order, and with a form of consensus (code reviews and merges to primary).
What is missing that makes it not a blockchain?
And my caveat here, I can't stand arguments for cryptocurrencies and have never purchased any. Blockchain as a concept is fine, and git is a blockchain as best I can tell.
Pretty sure they just use Yoti to provide the digital government identity verification. Which is also a reason this is being rolled out in Aus/NZ first where Yoti has a bigger footprint here / working with the govs here.
In Aus there are basically 2 media companies that control the majority of distibutions (News Corp and Nine Entertainment/Fairfax) and with that, they exert a worrying high level of influence on local politics. So this isn't really a fight between our government and google, our government is just being used as a tool. I think there's probably a middle ground that would make both sides happy but unfortunately the media here are able to push the government much harder than they should.
Unlike Twitter, I am used to HN users having dialogue about the substance of an article, not simply dismissing articles out of hand based on the ownership of the publication.
It's not exactly a new argument or a disinterested proponent; I think it's OK to take priors into account rather than spending time to address every argument from scratch.
Consider the fact that Quillette (which Lehman helped found explicitly supports allowing free speech for nazis, arguing (in defiance of available facts) that there's no evidence Nazis can radicalize people into being mass shooters. Oddly, they complain about Nazis being treated like ISIS but I don't see them going to bat for ISIS' right to free speech, presumably because there are no doubts about ISIS' use and glorification of violence.
There were always far more available perspectives from a variety of media sources than there are large tech media companies. Rupert Murdoch in his wildest dreams has never had anything approaching the control of information that Twitter, Facebook or Google/YouTube have currently.
The alternatives seem to be "make your address visible to the world" or "pay us for an ad". Requiring address verification, and keeping that between google and the business in question, would probably be an acceptable middle ground for this business.
Buisness contact information including addresses are very much not private information. You generally have to publicly disclose both when signing up for a licence.
I don't think atom is targeted towards those that are very happy with vim or similar. I'm thinking it's more aimed towards those using sublime or notepad++ or textmate or netbeans or some eclipse based ide.
sublime and notepad++, sure. I doubt, though, that they think they're going to move many away from using a full-blown IDE like NetBeans, Eclipse, Intellij, etc.
However, a lot of those got a bunch of investment or made some decent money in the short term. Very few are still around. We will see the same pattern here.