Looking for USA Reviewers

Hello,
I need around some verified Amazon USA reviews.
I will give you fee for each review + free product. I am looking for long term relation.
Thank you. You can PM me or leave your skyp .

Security – Ask Marco Falke and other Bitcoin Core developers and / or reviewers

Dear members of the Bitcoin community:

I will briefly explain the reason why I am writing here. I am working as a PhD student in the operation of the cryptocurrency government. I am trying to document two different events / crises: the "The Dao Hack" event in Ethereum and Bitcoin Core CVE-2018- # 17144.
To do this, I conduct interviews with people involved in these events. So I contacted M. Falke for an interview and he replied that he would prefer that my questions be addressed in public to ensure that everyone benefits from the questions and answers. He proposed to exchange bitcoin stack, so I agreed to ask my question here.

I hope to get news from you. Of course, you can decide to answer only some of the questions, or decide to answer in private (see my contact and my PGP code in my biography). So do not hesitate to take some time to share with me your specific work experiences in Bitcoin and some of your views on your particular government. If you are afraid that it will take you a long time to write your answers, I would love to speak with you orally. This would really help me in any case.

Best regards

Questionnaire:

Preliminary questions

Q1: First, could you introduce yourself and get involved again in Bitcoin (when, how, why, etc.)?

Q2: Can you give me information about your socioeconomic situation: what is your academic background, level of education? What is your annual income, the participation of your assets in cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, others, etc.)

General questions about your developer activities and the governance of the Bitcoin Core repository

Q3: Could you return to your activity as a lead developer? What does this bring you, what are your main motivations? Do you get financial compensation for working in Bitcoin? If so, can you give more details? If not, how do you divide your time between your profession and your volunteer work at Bitcoin Core?

Q4: Could you return to the operation of the github repository? You yourself have the rights of Commitment as responsible for quality control / testing. Can you explain how it happened? Did you ask yourself or another member wanted to give them to you?

Q5: Can you explain the criteria for the attribution and withdrawal of these commitment rights?

Q6: Can you describe the daily routine of a Bitcoin Core developer? What are the steps or processes that you respect every day?

Q7: Could you describe, based on your experience, the process that goes from proposing a group request, to your discussion, your test and, in the end, the merger and launch of a new implementation?

Q8: Does everything happen directly on Github or do you have other discussion channels to discuss between developers and collaborators?

Q9: Reviewing the RPs of other members is a crucial activity. Can you describe it accurately? How many people participate in this activity? Could you describe, according to your experience, the process you are following when reviewing the work of others?

Q10: Have you ever seen conflicting debates? In what terms are they resolved?

Questions about Bitcoin CVE 2018 # 17144

Q11: First, when and how did you notice the Bitcoin CVE 2018 # 17144 vulnerability? What did you do after noticing?

Q12: The Awemany error report (BCH dev.) Is addressed to P. Wuille, G. Maxwell – W. Van der Laan. It is then transmitted internally to C. Fields, S. Daftuar, A. Marcos and M. Corallo; Do you have any idea why these four people have been chosen?

Q13: Is there a specific procedure (formal or informal) in the management of errors and vulnerabilities in Bitcoin Core? If so, could you describe it?

Q14: These errors, discovered on September 17, were introduced after a series of modifications ranging from PR 443 (2011, 4 collaborators), to PR 10537 (2017, 5 participants). This underlines the time and long sedimentation of such a technical construction: what limitations does it imply to work on such a project? For reviewers, is it necessary to re-read / verify all codes or practices, necessarily "trust" the work that others will perform due to their limitations (cognitive saturation / division of work / discrepancies of changes)

Q15: It seems logical enough not to reveal to the public the severity of the failure (not to attract the attention of potential hackers) until you have ensured that the problem is corrected (i.e. responsible disclosure). Can you describe from your point of view the criterion of responsible disclosure?

Q16: Do Bitcoin Core members who discover / work privately on a specific defect or error have to follow a specific process? Has the Bitcoin Core team developed a formal framework of good practices to avoid potential conflicts of interest (for example: using their knowledge to obtain financial gains, etc.)?

Q17: In what sense, if we follow a rigorous version of the Code is Law, a transaction that spends twice the same UTXO allowed by the code (BC 0.15) could be characterized as pathological?

Q18: Such an error is not the first in Bitcoin (and probably will not be the last) and we can extend this to the "Error value overflow", since August 15, 2010, for example. How do you interpret the Bitcoin 2010 value overflow error and the fork made by Nakamoto and the first members of the Bitcoin community?

Q19: How are these situations different from what happened with the DAO Hack?

Final questions about the Bitcoin government

Q20: In Hard Fork and Soft Fork: Could you return to the distinction between HF and SF regarding possible changes in Bitcoin? In a sense, version 0.15 introduced an HF that was not activated because it had not been seen as such, right?

Last question: Q21: How do you rate / analyze the specific and innovative government behind Bitcoin? What are the different states and roles in the Bitcoin ecosystem, the different discussion channels, etc. for you?

Most Reviewers Announced Adidas

The current ClimaCool Attraction can be obtained right now with respect to $ 100 in 10 color combinations at adidas. com, as well as merchants from across the country within the first 04 such as Feet Locker, Complete Collection and Champs.

For more information, go to Myspace. com / adidasrunning or even sign up for the real discussion in Tweets @adidasUS or even #SweatNothing.

After earning a number of their own MLTIPLES LISTS, adidas SERVICE sports athletes focus on studs with pink accents with respect to most of the cancer types adidas Attention 30 days, New Balance sneakers for sale adidas lists the help of athlete Brie Felnagle and Christie Rampone of Ough. Utes The Nationwide Ladies Team include comparable details for their unique operational styles of miadidas.

The former New York NCAA champion, Felnagle, customized the woman's favorite athlete, the true four-watt Supernova series. The real footwear includes sports activities, the bleached nylon upper with leather base as well as the upper bluish-colored nylon upper, along with carmes and Christie Rampone, which became the title of the children throughout The Ladies Globe Mug of 2011 adds an adequate amount of red to the popular ClimaCool Trip. Click to see the immediate connection to each Adidas style or shoes. Miadidas to personalize your personal breasts. Most cancers. Attention to footwear.

Adidas ClimaCool footwear includes abnormally large sneakers on the top, midsole and outsole to prevent it from running out. The real reaction of ClimaCool is actually the most economical of the 4 versions of ClimaCool. The actual ports act as individuals present in the most expensive designs, however, all those other styles are actually much more fundamental, as well as ideals with respect to medium-mileage runners with very thin feet.

Most reviewers announced the Adidas Climacool 1 as a very comfortable footwear. Many of its customers value the current appearance of sneakers. Numerous documented how footwear is really light, some said that real footwear feels as if it were walking through the atmosphere. The real shoe offers a great help, several Adidas Tubalar Shadow PK left shoes a comment. Airy, breathable, very ventilated, tend to be some of the phrases that several customers tend to explain the Adidas Climacool 1. Most are satisfied with the colors of the shoes and also with the great selection associated with the colors. s on offer The real shoe is excellent at an affordable price, many of the actual reviewers deducted, along with some that actually indicate that the cost has been the discount.

US agent UU. With many reviewers

Hello friends,

I lead a group that helps sellers increase their review rate and increase sales. We have been successfully helping sellers for years, and we would love to work with you to put your product in the hands of buyers who provide excellent reviews and comments from sellers.

Send me an email:

Send me a private message on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Mr.Ggosurf

sql – Find pairs of reviewers so that both reviewers give a rating to the same book.

Description:

examples

  • Find pairs of reviewers so that both reviewers give a rating to
    same book
  • Remove duplicates do not match reviewers
  • For each pair, return the names of both reviewers on the pair in alphabetical order

Solution

http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!17/c1fc4/3/0

SELECT MIN (rev1.name) as name1, MAX (rev2.name) as name2 of the classifications AS r1
JOIN the classifications AS r2 ON r1.book_id = r2.book_id AND r1.reviewer_id! = R2.reviewer_id
JOIN the reviewers AS rev1 ON r1.reviewer_id = rev1.id
JOIN the reviewers AS rev2 ON r2.reviewer_id = rev2.id
GROUP BY r1.book_id
ORDER BY name1, name2

Can I write this query in a more readable and better way?

Code revisions: only allow those with write permissions to be extraction request reviewers

I'm setting up a new bitbucket repository and I can not find a way to set a specific permission. My current configuration requires that all mergers in the master or level 2 branches require a certain number of approvals before they can be accepted.

What I would like is that engineers can only select a person to be a reviewer if that person has writing or administrative rights in that branch. Currently engineers can add anyone they want as a reviewer. If I configure default reviewers (I would prefer not to do it for my organization), the engineer can delete them when making the extraction request.

Does anyone know how I can do it so that anyone who makes an extraction request can only select certain people to be reviewers?

Dialogue: How to make the reviewers of the low quality review of Stack Exchange realize that choosing a canned comment does exactly that?

Summary

How can the interface to choose canned comments be improved by choosing to remove it from the low quality queue of Stack Exchange so that reviewers are more aware of the real effects of their choice?

Current situation

The current interface faced by reviewers who choose to remove a publication in the low quality queue in Stack Exchange is as follows:

  1. They are shown the publication and then they can make their real choice, that is, if they want it removed, want to edit it, etc.

    Main interface of the low quality queue.

  2. Reviewers who choose to delete are presented with a selection of canned comments that will be left in the publication in their name:

    Selection of canned comments in the queue of low quality.

The problem

Many critics never or almost never choose no comment is needed Option, although there is already a comment that expresses the same in the publication (which makes the new comment redundant) or does not apply any of the comments. Please assume this problem as indicated for the purpose of this question. If you want to discuss this, here is a question about Meta SE where it would probably be well located.

As far as I can tell, the reason for this is a mixture of:

  • A variation of banner blindness that makes reviewers never (re) read the header of the canned comments dialog.

  • Users think that their choice in the canned comments dialog does more than just leave a comment, such as contributing to some statistics or affecting what happens in the publication (for example, this is a comment actually making the conversion of the comment).

  • The users think that no comment is needed It is not the right thing to do and it can be held against them. (This is not completely unjustified, because it is actually true, when one of the canned comments is correct and there is still no equivalent comment).

  • The interface focuses on the reason for the deletion (for example, "This is a thank you comment"), not on the comment that was actually chosen.

My question

How could the interface be improved in such a way that it is clearer that canned comments are only canned comments and that leaving no comments can be a valid option?

What I have considered so far

The following options do not convince me, although at least the first would be better than nothing:

  • More explanation could be added to the no comment is needed option as a text that explains that "This is a good option if an existing comment already addresses the problems of the publication". However, I am afraid that this may be affected by the same blindness of the banner and will be ignored.

  • Another level of dialogue could be added: after opting for deletion, users will be presented with a dialogue that allows them to choose only between no comments, canned comments, and possibly personalized comment (explaining these options) and only presents them with a selection of canned comments if they choose canned comment. The disadvantage of this is that it is another dialogue layer and it is not clear what the options for canned comments in the first layer are.

  • Remove the bold headings that show the reason for the deletion (for example, "This is a thank you comment").
    This should greatly increase the effort to find the right comment, when appropriate.

Dialogue: How to make the reviewers of the low quality review of Stack Exchange aware of the consequences of choosing a canned comment?

Summary

How can the interface to choose canned comments be improved by choosing to remove it from the low quality queue of Stack Exchange so that reviewers are more aware of the real effects of their choice?

Current situation

The current interface faced by reviewers who choose to remove a publication in the low quality queue in Stack Exchange is as follows:

  1. They are shown the publication and then they can make their real choice, that is, if they want it removed, want to edit it, etc.

    Main interface of the low quality queue.

  2. Reviewers who choose to delete are presented with a selection of canned comments that will be left in the publication in their name:

    Selection of canned comments in the queue of low quality.

The problem

Many critics never or almost never choose no comment is needed Option, although there is already a comment that expresses the same in the publication (which makes the new comment redundant) or does not apply any of the comments. Please assume this problem as indicated for the purpose of this question. If you want to discuss this, here is a question about Meta SE where it would probably be well located.

As far as I can tell, the reason for this is a mixture of:

  • A variation of banner blindness that makes reviewers never (re) read the header of the canned comments dialog.

  • Users think that their choice in the canned comments dialog does more than just leave a comment, such as contributing to some statistics or affecting what happens in the publication (for example, this is a comment actually making the conversion of the comment).

  • The users think that no comment is needed It is not the right thing to do and it can be held against them. (This is not completely unjustified, because it is actually true, when one of the canned comments is correct and there is still no equivalent comment).

  • The interface focuses on the reason for the deletion (for example, "This is a thank you comment"), not on the comment that was actually chosen.

My question

How could the interface be improved in such a way that it is clearer that canned comments are only canned comments and that leaving no comments can be a valid option?

What I have considered so far

The following options do not convince me, although at least the first would be better than nothing:

  • More explanation could be added to the no comment is needed option as a text that explains that "This is a good option if an existing comment already addresses the problems of the publication". However, I am afraid that this may be affected by the same blindness of the banner and will be ignored.

  • Another level of dialogue could be added: after opting for deletion, users will be presented with a dialogue that allows them to choose only between no comments, canned comments, and possibly personalized comment (explaining these options) and only presents them with a selection of canned comments if they choose canned comment. The disadvantage of this is that it is another dialogue layer and it is not clear what the options for canned comments in the first layer are.

  • Remove the bold headings that show the reason for the deletion (for example, "This is a thank you comment").
    This should greatly increase the effort to find the right comment, when appropriate.

Buy – You need amazon reviewers from the USA UU Proxies123.com

We paid $ 4 for verified review (it has to be 5 stars)

We cover the cost of the item, you keep the item, you are not allowed to request refunds on Amazon, but if you find a buyer for the item, you can sell it (or just keep it, use it, completely)

Looking for long-term reviewers.

Pm or answer here if interested, thank you!

How to find reviewers of youtube sites?

with 10k + subscribers?
Any ideas?