151 karma · joined January 18, 2017
But at the same time, we've seen a decline in corporate R+D since the start of the neoliberal era - the article mentions that this started at around Nixon's time. This is the period of time where Milton Friedman's ideas started to gain widespread acceptance:
>“there is one and only one social responsibility of business– to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game,”
Many organisations have taken the idea of "profits over everything", and interpreted it as "quarterly profits over everything". R+D labs don't result in quarterly profits. Much of the research ends up being profitable years down the track. So corporate R+D is killed off.
I mean, Uber Eats is losing cash at a phenomenal rate. So, more accurately:
>It's hard for a local pizza shop to compete with obscene amounts of venture capital subsidised delivery
I've found it very accessible. Largely, the way that they teach is to describe a system based on a set of assumptions, then slowly relax each of the assumptions one by one until you reach an example of a real system. That style of teaching really works for me.
Not sure if that's a national requirement or not, but houses I've lived in in Victoria also had RCDs.
- one shift predominantly in UTC-8 -> US West Coast
- one shift predominantly in UTC+8 ~> Singapore/Australia West Coast
- one shift around UTC+0 -> Europe
For 8h days, it works ok. I think that shorter days could work, if the shifts were split. There are also some offices outside of the 3 major time zones, which also fills in gaps.
Of course, dev availability is not usually 24/7 but there are two layers of support before issues reach dev.
Tech enthusiast: All my devices are IoT-ified! I can control everything via Google Home! I love living in the future!
Software engineer: The most recent piece of technology I own is a printer from 2005, and I keep a loaded gun ready to shoot it if it so much as makes an unexpected noise
I just feel like it's a bit ridiculous to downplay the environmental impacts of bitcoin mining by saying "it'll be fine when we have fusion!" because we don't have fusion today, and it's likely to be a very long time before fusion is commercially available.
Also, your initial comment said:
>By the way, the negative environmental impacts will be significantly reduced after ITER is ready.
ITER is not a commercial reactor. Even after it's construction is completed (expected to be, what, 2025?), we still have a long way to go before you can use fusion power to mine bitcoin.
Meanwhile, climate change is happening now. We need to be reducing emissions now.
Once we have clean energy production for everything, bitcoin will have minimal environmental impact?
That's ignoring the fact that fusion is still a very long way from commercial availability.
Hydro plants can usually turn off relatively quickly. They can be used as pump storage, which is an incredibly efficient way of storing energy - >70% efficiency [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...
A 310L fridge [1] (random one I found) for context uses about 280 kWh per year [2].
I think it's pretty ridiculous to say that the average bitcoin transaction provides approximately half the value (in the best case scenario) as having the ability to refrigerate food for a year. I'd say "pissing away" is a pretty fair comparison.
[1] https://www.lg.com/au/fridges/lg-GB-310RPL
[2] http://www.energyrating.gov.au/calculator
With [2] you will need to put the model number in the "Brand or Model" box
The Continuum Hypothesis [0] (which the authors are saying the learning problem is isomorphic [1] to) is not provable from the axioms of set theory. You can add "The Continuum Hypothesis is true" OR "The Continuum Hypothesis is false" to the axioms, and still have consistent mathematics.
[0] Continuum hypothesis is that the set of Integers (0, -1, 1, -2, 2, ...) is infinite but smaller than the set of Reals (Integers + Rationals + Irrationals), and there are no infinite sets with size smaller than the Reals, but larger than the Integers.
[1] not sure of correct term here - the point is that they have shown the problems are the same.