bally0241

5th amendment: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Pretty sure freezing someone's bank account based on some suspicion alone, is depriving them of their property without due process, and not remotely equivalent to driving without a license (or a duly revoked license), so your comparison is really off base.

Maybe you could possibly argue this way if upon freezing their accounts they called them up and said "Hey, your account is closed, come pick up your cash", but I'm pretty sure that is not the case here, and it is rather more like a civil-asset-forfeiture situation, where they'll likely need to go to court to regain access.

Now, all that being said, this is Canada, so I don't honest know whether there is an equivalent to the 5th amendment in their charter of rights, or whether there is some legal weasel word (e.g. "reasonable") that somehow provides a loophole for all this.

Bitcoin is hardly cost prohibitive. When was the last time you sent a transaction? The last one I sent cleared at 2sats/byte and was <$1. Are you going to buy your coffee with it? No, probably not, but that hardly makes it a useless as currency replacement. Replace-by-fee doesn't make small transactions any less trustworthy either, since you should never trust any unconfirmed transaction (by definition, if its not on the blockchain its not yet a transaction). Furthermore, the lightning network blows away the competition in terms of cost per transaction, and while not perfectly trust-less (unlike the base layer) it has far less custodial risk than a bank or credit card account. If for example your counter-party goes rogue, at worst you just close the channel resulting in a rollback to the last settled balance state, minus an on-chain fee.

I agree with you one this...but for whatever reason it is not the prevailing opinion on HN. I think that is largely due to the fact that many people on here knew of it early enough to become fabulously rich, but dismissed it out of hand without really looking into it.

Nice, much appreciated! This is handy for inspecting some large binary objects to json dumps I had wanted to examine.

Helmholtz equation?

Otherwise know as a Möbius transformation...how is this terminology missing from the article?

as if capital controls are not a crime in of themselves...

I just got it along with family (both vaxxed and unvaxxed, there was no noticeable difference in symptoms). It was somewhere between a 'common cold' and the flu. Not fun, but definitely not something to panic about (understandably everyone will have a different reaction depending on their current state of health). However, I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns on any sort of intervention (they've all failed). Masking is ineffective, lockdowns and social-distancing are ineffective, and the vaccines are ineffective (at least w.r.t. to preventing transmission). We can continue to tear society apart aiming for a 0% safe zero-covid society (which we will never achieve), or get on with our lives and live with the risk.

ROFL, oh yes this is so much better and the syntax so much clearer than C++. ;)

My house is ~180 years old, and is of timber construction. It may not be as well insulated/air-tight as a modern house, but it is hardly "sticks". While energy use is higher, not having an entirely air-tight house is a good thing in my region, as much of the ground below is made of granite which emits a large amount of Radon gas. In a perfectly air-tight house this radioactive gas would accumulate more in indoor spaces, so I'm happy with a larger degree of change over with the outside air (even at a larger heating cost).

A 2 bedroom in Boston for $500k, where are you shopping, Dorchester?

Sure, it could happen (doesn't make it legitimate). Maybe the system could even get over the air updates curtailing your movement if you happened to vote for the wrong party in the last election, or said something naughty on twitter. So much for freedom, was a nice experiment while it lasted.

Next up, your car may refuse to start if you haven't had your most recent booster shot!

You don't modulate the neutrino beam itself, but you could modulate the pion production beam. For typical neutrino beam experiments this is done with a large magnetic horn which focuses/defocuses (+/-) charged pions which then decay to (anti)neutrinos and (anti)leptons. By changing the current in the horn you could modulate the intensity of the beam to send data.

Needless to say this is woefully impractical, would require an extremely large neutrino flux and detector, and would have an absolutely abysmal bit-rate. Not to mention you'd likely only be able to send messages in one direction. But it could be done.

see: https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-...

We all became Finnish?

thanks wumao

stock to flow.

Separate experimenters making claims to the same results is in itself a form of evidence. Believing otherwise requires either the existence a common error or a conspiracy.

You don't. Case in point the drift in measured values of the fundamental charge of the electron over time starting with Millikan. However, given enough independent evidence you can conclude whether or not the results of a measurement are more likely than not.

I did not say there was a need to personally verify the results of every experiment. Merely pointing out that the scientific process is not based on trust, but evidence. I would not believe a claim made by a single experimenter/group unless independent evidence corroborates it. Neither should you. Look up the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment, or pentaquarks.

No, I have not "seen" an atom. However, I have done experiments in a lab which have produced results which are consistent with atomic theory. There is no need to have faith in the cartoon model of an atom. All that matters is that the theory can be used to make predictions which can then be verified by experiment. The underlying "objective" nature of reality is immaterial.

Science isn't based on trust. It's based on evidence. You may "trust" that someone's results are what they say they are, but they must be reproducible and independently verifiable. If they aren't then its bunk.