CodiePetersen

I will say though, after the damage is done and its been x amount of time and there is no immediate danger. There is not too much physical donations that can help, but again that's not a food drive problem.

We are not talking about an emergency though. We're talking about regular food drives. Donating to emergencies if a different matter. And if your city is underwater, get your ass out there and help.

Right and their program expense is "Distributing food". What do you think that vague description of a program encompasses. Paying drivers? Paying the manager of the drive by the hour? It tells you very little of what your money is actually going to.

Now I don't mean to knock the people of Brazos Valley Food Bank, they might all be volunteers and they might all work out of a volunteers garage, in which case you bet your ass if I knew for a fact I would be donating hard cash and probably even volunteer when and what I could if that was my neighborhood.

But I'm not going to donate to some giant entity that can "scale". My entire point of the comment was that the author paints a picture that your food donation hinders operations and youd be better off to donate just one dollar instead of one can. So I pointed out all of the local cases where your donation goes just the right amount and from volunteers and for people who aren't going to complain about what efforts you are going to put in.

You don't need to scale. How many churches are in LA? When I was homeless over there when I was younger, there were spots all over the city that were feeding the homeless. You don't need one giant entity. You just need the community to care. If your community doesn't care no amount of money is going to fix it.

>>This is addressed in the article.

Right and I addressed it at the end of that comment. Saying its fine to donate money if you want. But people shouldn't be ashamed of donating canned food.

>>You should look into the annual reports of your local nonprofit;

This whole article was about efficiency and how much further your money goes if you donate cash. Putting any middle man in there with any budget for operation cuts away from the gains. And if they are getting donations from corporations, then fine, use that money for operations. My money won't be going to them. I'll donate to a church or whoever who is actually doing it from the goodness of their heart. (Note I keep referencing churches, but there are other non religious groups that do it for free not under a non profit corporation, specifically I know for a fact in LA at venice beach there is a group that helps homeless youth by feeding them and offering them a place to sleep, they even hand out condoms.)

Or I can donate to a church that is doing all of it for free. If the issue is efficiency then isn't it better to donate to individuals doing it for free.

Yes considering depending on the nonprofit large percents of that one dollar donation go to other things like advertisements posters shirts etc. By the time you cut that out you are only going to get two cans worth. So what's more important getting someone off their feet to participate in their community or money.

Sure if it's a large operation for 10000 family drive but a lot of food drives can just store their food in the church basement or a managing members garage. Plus if you are buying food with the money you have to do that anyway. Just offload physical donations first.

As a kid who grew up in a family that needed foodstamps and foodbank runs I guarantee you what you get at a food bank is a hundred times better than what you parents are going to have to invent with frozen peas mayonnaise and bread.

Also keeping the donations as food ensures the donations go directly to helping your community. Non profit ceos make 100s of thousands of dollars a year. That money comes from cash donations. People don't want to line a ceos pockets they want to help their neighbor.

Most of the foodbanks we went to were churches and local groups. They weren't interested in managing accounts for foodbank replenishment they just did drives when the needed more. It's immediately easier.

When you give a physical thing it has purpose. It's not 5 dollars going who knows where. You know someone somewhere got a can of creamed corn. Most of these people donating I would say aren't going to go out and buy a bunch of stuff. But they will look in their pantry and see if there is anything they are not using.

Depending on the source they bought it from, that money also goes directly back to the community.

So there are a lot of benefits to donating food. If you want to donate money fine. But I'd wager if the only choice was donating money less people would donate.

Wow great article and perfect timing for me. I'm about to go into testing phase myself and this is something I've never considered. I was worried because we're and indie group and I wasn't sure how we were going to get a lot of people but looks like smaller is good enough and even optimal.

Thanks.

You aren't really "sending data" though. Each one of the neruons just ends up triggering a circuit. And some of the fire signals are actually inhibitory signals to stop other neurons from firing. Not to mention all of the chemical signaling going on and the different types of patterns/behaviors that get activated through repetitive or limited activity.

So really to calculate bandwidth is kind of pointless. One the neurons use more dimensions than just on and off electrical signals as their state and two, neurons don't really pass information along when you think about it they just trigger circuitry.

Agreed. I would say the same thing coming into America. Even if you are American. I always refuse to fill out the paper while reentering my own damn country, unless I'm travelling with others. But that means I get pushed to secondary every time. Usually only Hispanic and middle eastern people in there. But the border control agents can take and search anything they want. So I say probably do the same for coming into America on the chance they send you to secondary.

The atomic cross-chain swapping means I can have assets or a coin on one chain and transfer it to another. In this case maybe transfer coins from bitcoin to the xaya blockchain for chi. It wouldn't really get rid of the transaction fees for bitcoin, but what it would do is allow you to transfer some amount of bitcoin out if you know you are going to be doing high frequency transactions. You could just do it on a lower fee blockchain and then put it back in your bitcoin account when you have done what you wanted to do.

There is another possibility on Xaya and I believe Ethereum has implemented as well now. On Xaya they are called game channels. The idea is that you allow a side branching chain to develop between an arbitrary number of people, then when a game is over you inject the end of the side chain back into the main chain and verify it. They invented it for near realtime verification between consenting parties, then you only pay the main transaction fee when you get back on the main block instead of very every action. But that type of system doesn't have to be only done with games obviously, that could be applied to anything.

If you are interested more in it, you can check this video out. They have lots of documentation and tutorials for the network as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMd9mvc8pqA

The federal reserve does exactly that and is a bank.

Let's go with a proof of stake coin like tron. They have a 2.5 billion market cap. That's more than all of the pentagons ai budget. Congress was bitching about the f35's 94 million dollar price tag. Do you think they are going to vote to give a budget for not only the attack but the person ell and hardware as well? All for a, according to HN apparently, "insignificant financial threat". Doubtful. Easier to just regulate it with a single pen stroke.

I do agree the transaction rate and fee are horrid. But there are other coins that solve this problem in a dectralized manner. Also there are some block chains that all cross chain atomic swaps. I've been working with a blockchain called Xaya and there is mentions of maybe implementing that as well. I might help on that front after my game is finished. More importantly though. Xaya implements merged mining and you can mine xaya( the coin is called chi) and bitcoin at the same time. So there are not so many problems as people claim or think with crypto.

Banks have decade old hardware and take forever to upgrade software and protocols. You expect them to design a sophisticated attack and run it for however long. On top of that, it would be really easy to find out which bank was doing it and that has huge legal and customer based ramifications. Definitely not worth it.

>>Sure, lots of people mock and criticize it,

Bitcoin and crypto only survive because of trust. There was a time, especially on Bloomberg, when the news was constantly criticising it and sowing mistrust. "It's only used by hackers" or "hit men are murdering people for crypto on the dark web" or "terrorist are funding operations with crypto.". So there have been countless efforts to break the core of what makes a currency valuable.

Additionally, Bitcoin specifically is illegal in several countries, China being one of them. The US has also seized several piles of bitcoin and like they do with other seized assets they put it up for auction. These guys buy the stuff up cheap and immediately sell it. Now that's not a specific attack but it is damaging to prices. Lastly exchanges are requiring photo id to buy things now because of regulation which makes it even harder for people to get into. I can buy bullets and in some cases guns more easily.

So there is actually plenty, not to mention numerous attacks on the network in the early days. Who knows who was behind those.

If you have defined the function and it is used in many places then you only need to read it once and remember everytime you come across it. How is recoding it every time going to help the readability. I think you just need to make sure the functions purpose is clear either.

I imagine it's hard to objectively measure this. You also have to trust the interviewee.

Oh that makes sense.

I think they probably did get really big. There are some cases of dead sperm whales washing up that have appeared to be attacked by giant squid. Coupled with the fact that the oceans used to be teeming with life before commercial fishing I would imagine perfect availability would definitely get you some big squid.

This paper talks about fishery populations during WW2 when it was to dangerous to fish. So if you think about how many fish would be available, I imagine that you could have many giant ones roaming around. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929348/

I have a small indie group with a friend and my brother and we are developing on this block chain. I haven't seen anything on HN about it so thought I would post this quick video about it. They have a discord as well you can join. I'm Cairo on the server.

https://discord.gg/CRAuBE4

Sounds about as decentralised as my private collection of cloud servers I get to make all the decisions on. Decentralised is supposed to mean individuals are both the caretakers and the users.

Very well put.

It's not really a crypto coin. It's a stable coin. The value is backed by hard cash in a vault somewhere. And not anyone can mine it, only the 10 million buy in organizations can process transactions on their nodes. But essentially it's pay pal labeled as a crypto coin. So they can get away with skirting some laws because "it's not actually money man".

Just a sleezeball move in my opinion to capitalise on the hard work the crypto community has been putting in to make safe trustworthy decentralised systems. That's in no way saying there isn't sleeze balls in the community, but there are real believers about the whole idea that have been working hard.

I think this coin is a really bad idea. Its just centralizing a crypto coin and then removing the laws around money because now a dollar has a libra coin wrapper on it so it's obviously totally different than a dollar.

It feels like a federal reserve moment where a bunch of rich folk get together and again dictate the future of currency. Crypto was supposed to change that trend. Unfortunately the want of convenience will probably win out over any sort moralistic/idealistic standing and unless government steps in, it will probably be widely adopted.

Tickling the dragons tail seems very appropriate. I'd be sweating bullets manaually adjusting a nuke core with a screw driver.

That's very interesting. But I think it probably is the fact they have fresher more youth receptors. If you think of when kids touch warm things and say it's too hot, it's a similar concept. Their eye receptor will fire more strongly reducing the main effects of the illusion. Although, if you are on a bigger screen, it may be that it's your eyes that are failing. Bigger screens or zoomed in this illusion breaks.

In the eye, cells only fire if the signal between the neighbors is great. There is also higher resolution concentrated at the center and drops off as you move away. Additionally the brain processes signals in context of the last signal it received. So if you put that all together, on a small screen the gaps are small enough that in the center of the eye, fovea, it will be processing more red than brown. You can also see the ball is actually not just brown. Its shaded which reduces the "fire near highly different neighbors" effect. The red though is solid.

There is also the fact that the eyes resolution drops off towards the edge. This makes the effect even harsher in the corner of your eye. As your eye moves from ball to ball your brain will be processing the new higher resolution versions based on the previous versions you saw in the corner of your eye. That effect fades away but your eye is actually always moving doing something called saccades, on a small screen with many prominent points it will do it a lot.

With a big screen alot of that goes away. The gaps are larger. The brown fades more slowly from light to dark so is percieved as a stronger color. Objects are larger so saccades will be less effective because they will be searching fewer objects rather than many in a tight screen. Lastly the lower resolutions at the edge of your eye will pick up more brown as well.

So there most definitely is physical aspects.