_57jb

The last point you made about cryptocurrencies fleecing others bit built with intent to prevent market distortion is dead on.

People getting into crypto in fratboy style have gone on the rollercoaster and often are pushing it to their desires.

In the history of money (I'm talking U.S. at this point but other countries have their story) this carpet bagging happened earlier on... we've just been using it long enough that the story was forgotten and long before our time.

I'm referring to the Gold Reserve act Executive Order 1602 of 1933 where gold was required by law to be turned in at an exchange of $20/oz and a year later jacked up to $35/oz an ounce.

This decoupled the Federal Reserve from backing credit with gold, etc. The story continues but you get my point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102#:~:text....

why wouldn't you just leverage a stable coin if you are looking for speed?

The slowest part of this are the banks and the clearing houses. They essentially "trust" other institutions to a certain extent and vouch for the money until it officially arrives on the books. You should read up on FedNet

if you are worried about volatility there are less volatile options inside of crypto

Yeah. I think speculation can be good when you don't have the speculators at the top of the food chain.

I'm talking specifically about the Friedman Doctrine and making companies beholden to shareholders in the United States. It's been proven that it doesn't work yet we still have that structure.

Predicting future direction can get people deeply invested in an investigative way but when they hold the reigns they can coerce entities to follow their direction

How much waste and damage is being done by the banking data centers and associates globally?

Care to take a guess where that damage stands?

It's amazing that this is being downvoted.

Such a simple and straightforward argument and instead of having it they'd rather hide it. I wonder why.

Agreed.

To add to this who is out there quantifying how much energy is used by the data centers, jets, etc, of banking institutions and other institutions driving money to contrast this to? It's almost like some people might want the system that is currently in place to stay that way.

It's no more a scam than the dollar, yuan, or euro.

It's as trusted as the system backing it. Can it be trusted enough that you at least can see when it's being manipulated? Can your current system? Some countries benefit greatly, some maybe little to none.

When every transaction flows publicly that's already a different starting point than what we have today.

I agree with you.

NFTs in their current hype cycle with art is a shallowly thought out implementation.

It requires a governing body to source the originals but then you essentially have a coin at this point.

I am glad we are talking about crypto pro/cons but this article was a huge miss imho.

The arguments against are these beaten dead horses that many within crypto know already and frankly not well versed.

NFTs were an unenforceable joke, integrating the physical world and the digital world doesn't exist (yet?), there are alternatives to the PoW model in use, legal aspects and oracles in the Ethereum network need to be addressed still...what about the DAO reversing the hack which was essentially a loophole in the contract. When loopholes happen in current legal systems it's frowned upon and demands precedent. How about the ridiculous pump and dumps, the toxicity that is speculation amidst many other things.

Governments didn't pop up in one day whole cloth and this will take iterations as well. There is some evolutionary approach to things where what "theoretically works" is tested in reality and deduction is provn out against induction.

There is more transparency in some ways, a lot of confusion in regulation, and misinformation galore. Look no further than the current dealings in Wallstreet to see that existing systems are not currently solved with digital money having been tested for decades now.

I think there are many deserved "good, bad, and ugly" articles to be written but this one was lacking in depth, context, and what I feel is missing most frequently...contrast

I absolutely agree with this sentiment.

Many engineers, product advocates, and sales engineers/architects build careers, playbooks, and talk tracks around debunking or handwaving others (and sometimes their own) benchmarks.

The pressure to make a sale and your livelihood against a customer that is looking at products on a top ten scorecard is a lot of pressure

Yeah, if you prescribe to the smoke and mirrors style.

Sometimes the logic or capabilities of technology have to be explained at a cursory level just to provide some grounding.

I made the same mistake as OP thinking I could dazzle my "investors". It was the early days of VR before controllers existed and I built a few peripherals to compensate for an interactive training environment (savings of 2MM travel/training etc).

Demo was a hit, numbers were a hit, they started asking about tech, adoption, viability...I believed in VR but they needed to believe it was going to be real based on more than my enthusiasm.

Shelved only to be revived five years later with someone else running it following a trail that had been clearly blazed by competition. I was happy for them but always wished I had been given a chance to take that shot before the wave hit. I just lacked the credentials and I was never clever enough to be a "baffle with bullshit" person.

Backend people even just to say: "I am the authority and everything said here is possible. I will show you if you are seriously interested in the mechanics"

This feels like a really well explained point.

It may be a stretch but I feel nature plays dice where certain events exploit advantages. It feels like something that is futile to balance against.

Perhaps understanding our tribalism and need to differentiate by color, sex, nationalism, etc. It feels like there are moving parts we are not discussing whether because of sensitivity or because we just don't fully understand.

For some reason I saw your list of things people are blaming as

...Google, "writing JavaScript"...

I said to myself: Ouch and damn! Fair point.

Edited a typo and for clarification, I love all languages and am dripping with sarcasm and snark for all of them equally.

This right here. It was one of the few ways in BTC where you could launder it and completely break the flow.

Then there was monero and it seemed to scratch the itch a little easier

I have a naive question.

Am I only able to get the paper free by asking the researcher (assuming all others are behind paywalls) which is being enforced by some form of legal language?

For example, say I post a link to my research paper alongside a presentation I gave associated to the work (let's say it's sitting on GitHub).

Is there typically language to prevent this?

You've been spending too much time arguing over virtualization or bare metal.

You are at the wrong level of abstraction.

Why is using Twitter for telling a story a thing.

People that are smart as hell using a tool built around what feels like mental whiplash to tell a relatively complex story.

I actually think there is value with Twitter applying pressure and economy of words (I would fall into the category of over-explainer) helping folks like myself be more concise, but can't the story just go here?

Thinking out loud I'm sure there is an approach towards multiple networks being hit simultaneously but it'd really be nice if linking to a Twitter thread roll-up just automatically dumped the whole text here without needing to click into and pull in ${threadReaderTooling}

I hate that we use twitter to report on stuff...it feels like the worst medium to talk about meaningful issues and the easiest way to get things twisted.

It feels like this is the type of response where we were at with Windows when they were forcing updates etc.

They backpedaled a little bit when you were forced to log in through a Microsoft account and people semi-rioted but came back pretty strong.

I mean... isn't everyone piling onto the intel beatdown?

I saw a pretty rough one talking about the desperation and low yields of their chips.

No rest for the weary

Agreed.

Call home features can be spoofed by a poisoning type of attack upstream in various forms.

This is not bullet proof and a cop-out with a poor solution for security.

You know who has effective call home features? Vendors that sell to major enterprises. It is a natural progression and a particularly nasty environment to live within.

If they are legitimately trying to protect the brand through force or merely forcefully controlling the app ecosystem... it's an abusive relationship to be in.

The fact this is not configurable without dead lettering the route is all they need to do to show tethering is something they consider as a viable security measure.

I'll pass.

Uphold and Cred severed ties awfully quick.

For something geared towards transparency...really strange how ominous this all is.

Really has me thinking hard about Crypt, Nexo, etc and all of the other ones out there. I diversify for stuff like this so not a huge loss if I get nothing but damn.

Surprised this isn't getting more traction. Maybe not many users were leveraging it.

You have a heck of a brand-name on your hand....trademark!

Came here to say exactly this...it's still a click-baity title.

This really has nothing to do with demanding ransom. You could hack a website leaving a message and claim they could "Demand a ransom".

Quite simply this is just the ease of hacking IoT devices which unfortunately is not new and has happened with every industry as it becomes "connected" (cars, homes, etc).

I would have clicked if it said merely "IoT /s/Home Devices /Coffee Makers/ easily hacked" but the "ransom" aspect is purely to heighten the fear, arguably even in the article itself.

This reminds me of the range-rover when they reported on it as if they had taken over a jeep "in-the-wild" where in reality it was a very controlled scenario and arguably much more sophisticated. Even then it wasn't as sensational as this (just my opinion).

I feel like you summarized my life.

I have four areas I think of relationships in; physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual.

We don't have to align perfectly in any or all areas, but there has to be activity and I do have a belief that people have a minimum they can tolerate in any one of those areas.

I think expectations are well... expected. It's just that some are socially obvious and others are unique to the individual. Willing to navigate these as a partner (or any relationship at different levels) provides a connection for doing this "better together".

I knew a guy in the military who often stated: "Never trust a man you cannot have a drink with"

I had always felt conflicted because alcoholism was a common thing there and often people were sorting these things out.

This article was precisely his point. It has always stuck with me. Some of the most counter-intuitive advice from the least expected minds which has changed my views much later in life.

We call these three button cmds "smash"

e.g. "smash"+h moves the window left with shiftit

This is the point.

Using gas is like eating dessert first. This is just forcing vegetables as part of the equation.

There will be a carbon tax because people are too short-sighted in identifying long-term impact because - "It doesn't hurt me."

It does...you are just too dense to notice.

I worked at a large insurance company in a previous life, this was their stance as well.

They will deviate if the field is hot enough and it translates to money for them. They were paying FAANG money to AI/Data Science fresh out of college.

The McKinseys/Gartners/etc of the world talk about the coming advantage...exec hears it and they become more open to these "critical sectors"