There is a balance between give and take in every relationship. Even the best person in the world can become comfortable if you’re giving 20ft, while they only have to give 5.

The way you speak about YOU changing for them, and the overall tone of your (light on tangible details) post, points to some insecurities in yourself. The people you’ve dated might have been taking advantage of it, even if unconsciously.

I would take some time to really love yourself and stop questioning all of the beautiful things you do for your mate. Your love language is actions, similar to my spouse, but you can’t do all of the work.

You might find that drawing your boundaries comes a lot easier once you understand and truly accept that you’re worth it and valuable without having to bend over backwards. At that point you’ll likely stop attracting the wrong kind of person and your taste will become more discerning once you start to see the patterns of imbalance.

My advice: Really think about your principles and what you believe to be fair in a relationship. Write these down and repeat them. Example: 1. Housework should be split (not necessarily even) where your time is valued as much as theirs. 2. Your acts of affection need to be acknowledged, if not 100% reciprocated in kind. 3. I will not keep working harder on the relationship in an effort to hold onto someone who is distant.

Respect yourself, find someone who really appreciates you not just for what you do for them, but for how you are together. Don’t lose hope. You may have been unlucky in your selection (or unconsciously chose unavailable partners), but your future doesn’t have to repeat. There are good people out there. Good luck.

That value was increased initially through usage as countries adopted ATMs and online retailers accepted bitcoin. This obviously reduced the supply due to increased demand. Then the speculators started buying it up making it even more scarce.

It has a fixed amount. It’s normal to rise in value as it becomes more useful for either transacting, holding value, or making money through speculation. You can’t compare it to a 300 year old dollar which was unpegged from gold and has the US economy/government backing it now.

The dollar is also manipulated, but the effects are less pronounced due to the sheer amount in circulation around the world. Some of the effects are also thrown on other economies through the Forex markets too. If bitcoin were as ubiquitous as the $, it wouldn’t be easy to manipulate either. It’s like having your own coin with only 100 physical coins in circulation. All someone has to do is buy a bunch and refuse to sell and the value rises for the uninformed.

No tech is perfect. And the current bitcoin is not the same as the original client. It has been modified to allow for abuse and control. The fact that we allow this to take place is more a reflection of our governments aiming to control it than any inherent property of the currency.

Big banks would have far less control if you couldn’t print sanctioned currency to buy as much bitcoin as they want to play with the value set by sanctioned exchanges.

I agree that bitcoin is capitalist like most monetary bills in a free market. I disagree it’s more capitalist than what we have now. It’s just being propagandized and veiled from the underlying technology to make it seem so.

By design, it will slowly stop inflating at the snails pace it does vs unpegged paper currency.

A central bank regulating where money is printed and to whom it’s distributed at what contrived rates is horrifying. It’s also the default in most of the world.

You can trade bitcoin and use it as a currency in a non-capitalist market. The fact that it has been abused and traded into stratospheric value is a result of manipulation, sanctioned exchanges, and propaganda.

Bitcoin just allows you to write debits and credits on a distributed, verified, ledger. That’s it really. How the market is regulated is on the people, not the technology. There is nothing inherently capitalist about the technology other than allowing any individual to trade value with another in a free market manner. You would be trying to escape supply and demand dynamics to remove that “capitalist” aspect of it.

The power draw on the other hand.. the first imagining of a digital decentralized and distributed currency was bound to have some problems.

Know what you want to buy before going into a store, stick to your guns. Unless you want to dilly dally, it saves time.

Organize your stuff, makes finding things much faster. Adam Savage had a good tip: Befor you put something away, pretend you’re looking for it and put it where your first thought was. Next time you look for it, it’s in a natural spot for you.

Not always good advice.

An exclusive relationship, by definition, minimizes your future options but opens up a subset which are better for many/most people.

Meh, sometimes you just know after seeing who’s out there. I wouldn’t recommend breaking off something good and risking not getting it back because of your insecurities.

The difficulty is getting closed source hardware manufacturers to adopt it.

These micro-examples are a reminder that corruption is a part of every human system, no matter how perfect the design.

There will always be concertgoers cutting the unwatched fence to sneak in for free.

The only plausible solution is elective transparency. Either your company and financial metadata are available for independent third party review, and records retained as defined, or else you’re not a company.

Don’t ascribe to it, get boycotted.

Would not trust automatically downloading executables unless you have a sandbox.

There are some people that make 99% of the world 1% worse for the profit. The author lets them off the hook because “they’re just trying to make money”. As if having an understandable motive would redeem the “SEOs”.

Newsflash, it doesn’t. These are organized crime groups as far as I’m concerned. The law just hasn’t or $won’t$ prosecute them for the selfish damage they’ve caused.

If I have a society of 100 people, 2 start a search engine for the others, 1 starts an anti-search engine whose stated goal is to mislead the other search engine users while stealing profit from the 2 innovators who bettered humanity.

I spare no positive feelings for these pond-scum criminals.