jpsalm

Because the purpose wasn’t to lockdown third party apps, that’s just an unfortunate bystander.

The purpose is to lock down API access to extract value from AI training.

Yea its i2c.

You're trying to cut out the middle man in learning how to cook.

It doesn't need to be complicated. Everyone who cooks knows the answers to these questions because they can remember that time their oil started smoking or they burnt this or undercooked that. Just start trying it, you'll learn as you go.

Yea that's what I don't understand either.

Is the plan to secure a fully-mined chain just rampant value-inflation in a way that is completely detached from supply and demand? Today my 1e-1000 bitcoin is worth 10 carrots, tomorrow it is worth 20 everything else held equal? How does that even work in practice?

Alternatively you need transactions to pay entirely for the security of the chain. This doesn't seem feasible when chain security costs rise everyday as the cost of energy deceases. And if transaction fees increase to compensate and people transact less the whole thing blows up.

> Wild conspiracy theories, financial advice with no basis in reality, astroturfing, and mob behavior.

Like convincing the world that 'short ladder attacks' were a thing.

https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/135807/closing-sho...

Gnome on Wayland works pretty great for me. (No issues with brightness etc). Occasionally I log into an X11 session because Wayland screen sharing doesn't work that great.

What? A few (new) trading platforms that are deliberately trying to shake up the market 'jammed'. The market itself was fine.

Well, if people are paying for it with Tether and it turns out Tether is backed by loans or other cryptocurrencies then it would be by definition artificially inflated.

Do you hear yourself? I assume you are a rational person.

Why wouldn't you expect the count of votes entered into a system to be off before everything is entered into the system? Of course it's off.

Hell, why not just launch this claim on Nov 10 and say that the count is off by millions of votes? It's a braindead argument.

Maybe, just maybe, you are being lied to:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pennsylvania-205000-votes/

The allegations were thrown out by every court they got brought to and by conservative judges as well. It's a farce and you're the sheep getting fleeced.

> ction fees cannot support the mining hardware as is, miners sell of their hardware to recoup their costs and the chain becomes vulnerable.

I mean unless you are logging this and charting it I'm going to assume people are seeing whatever is confirming their priors on this one.

Twitter suspending/banning for violations of policy is discrimination in the same way barkeeps throwing unruly patrons out of the bar is discrimination.

The cycle is self-reinforcing though.

As transaction fees increase to cover the cost of security (even an "altruistic" (self-interested) financial system needs to pay for energy) users are less likely to transact which is positive feedback on the transaction fee.

If deflation cannot outpace this then Bitcoin effectively dies. The longer you leave funds on the chain the more you will pay to pull them out. If deflation does outpace security cost you have runaway infinite deflation that is no longer tied to a from of scarcity but instead the cost of securing the chain. That doesn't seem great either.

> Hell, maybe by then they get enough people on board for a BTC 2 that's some weird Ethereum competitor. It's really hard to theorize on that long of a time horizon.

Possible, but I don't know if I'm optimistic about humanity's ability to generate collective consensus in the face of crisis.

Can someone explain this to me?

The year is 2150 or whatever -- bitcoin is fully mined. There is a metric asston of mining hardware out there that needs to be running to secure the chain -- presumably all coming from transaction fees.

Not only to transaction fees have to scale to cover the entirety of block rewards but they must continue to grow over time to compete with increased hardware efficiency in hashing.

Does it not follow that:

a) transaction fees rise to recoup not only current cost of mining hardware, but R&D and deployment of new hardware over time to keep the chain secure. As people realize this they convert their bitcoin to something else to avoid bag holding.

OR

b) transaction fees cannot support the mining hardware as is, miners sell of their hardware to recoup their costs and the chain becomes vulnerable.

I confess I might be missing something but I don't see how a fully mined coin is stable.

You can get an IP camera app and just use gstreamer to pipe it to v4l2loopback. Perfectly usable webcam available on /dev/video1.

Yes, non-blockchain transactions are much more efficient. But then what's the point of using blockchain if transactions happen off-chain?

Significantly less energy per transaction, which is the only metric that matters.

>One thing that's always worked for me is to amortize the cost of purchase by time played. If I get only six hours of Cyberpunk 2077 played at $60. That's 10/hr for entertainment... which is better than a lot of stuff.

I'll probably sink 50 or 60 hours into the game completing the main story. That's $1/hr of entertainment... ridiculously good value.

The amount of time we have is finite, attaching a dollars per hour figure to it is a hilariously bad metric to judge how much value entertainment has. People don't play X's and O's all day because it's great value.

When a meter company catches someone cheating do we want them to be able to rectify in their database or fork an entire blockchain?

Apologies for the paywall. At time of submission it was the only article. Here is another: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-05/facebook-...

Just reading through the notes and there are lots of EVE terms in there. They look like they're talking about something else, a new game maybe, but I wouldn't discount it just yet.

(Miners, haulers, nanite )

Yea it's a bit of a stretch. I haven't played EVE in ten years though and it was the first thing that popped into my mind.

Looks like this was back in 2011 or so: http://www.verite.space/maps/influence/20110115.png (NW corner)

Kind of a stretch but the crossover between jaded dev/tech people and EVE Online players is high:

Mostly Harmless is an old, now defunct, EVE corp. Might be someone who ran in that that might recognize him.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/cd7ku3/disbanded_allia...

The output html is getting picked up by xdg-open and directed into Firefox -- anyway of redirecting the output to lynx e.g. ./rdrview '<site>' | lynx

30 minutes is a bit of a trite example but if you only have say less than 10 hours a month the dollars/hour for owning your own your own hardware looks a lot worse than the subscription model.

Do we really need to stare down our noses at people who just want to look at cat pictures?

Of course the party that is doing the encryption can see the original content...

Yes, but it is a sliding scale. Firing someone after organizing a strike would suggest sufficient prima facie to pursue the case in court. A claim without the appearance of supporting evidence would be thrown out.

>You don't appear to understand why courts have "something called burden of proof". In court, the burden of proof is on the person who was fired. They must show that they were fired illegally. You can't just randomly assign "burden of proof" based on your ideological bias.

You don't appear to understand that there is clearly visible causality here. A random person claiming they were unjustly fired is different than someone who was fired after organizing a strike.