nojster

On a relative scale, I agree with you that the amount of training involved differs for accountants and burger flippers, thus this is a good example.

On an absolute scale, comparing skills of burger flippers, accountants, aeronautical engineers and surgeons, the first two basically lump together.

I look at skill gap more in terms of „how hard is it to completely automate/autonomize this job“. Which is fiercely easy both for the burger flipper and the accountant, yet a bit harder (though not impossible) for the other two.

With the two examples you chose, I‘d say there is not much of a skill gap.

If you‘d have chosen a burger flipper and an aeronautical engineer or a surgeon, I‘d have agreed with you.

As a German, I have to fiercely object here (:

More seriously: Almost all cars in Germany are limited to 250km/h (155 mph). Higher limits for more powerful cars are also found in the 280-290 km/h (173-180 mph) range.

So, de facto, even in Germany speed limiters have been a thing for decades. The discussion should thus be more about the limit, rather than the device itself.

Obviously this is different than imposing a „+10 mph“ limit, since the car would have to know the speed limit of the current road.

Descartes told us that animals are mere soulless automatons, not entities given the same rights and same consideration as humans.

Well ok, that was 300 years ago and views have changed dramatically since then.

Agreeing on this one. State should sell any kind of addictive substance, which would immediately yield benefits:

1. (Large parts of) Funding of organized crime would dry up and the state would get extra income via tax

2. Addicts know they can get their fix and hence can take up regular work

3. Substances would be cleaner and thus safer for consumption (easing the burden of the health care system)

Not saying that there are no downsides to this, but the downsides have to be weighed against the upsides and in my book the upsides outweigh the downsides.

That’s a very fine line to walk. The same reasoning could be applied to speeding (actively endangering others), overeating (actively endangering yourself), hunting, snowboarding, skydiving (or any other activity which increases your likelihood of having and accident and hence burdening the health care system beyond the national average).

Curious as to why you are interested in 100%+ Keebs.

I know that everyone has a different comfort zone, especially for their daily driver (which is a 60% split for me) and the only reason I can think of (besides aesthetics, of course) is a „feeling of power“ when handling a larger battlestation.

I’m not shaming or judging in the slightest yet am genuinely curious.

Precisely! Once you do that, you realize that public debt on the US has quadrupled since the financial crisis of 2008.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN/

Meaning that much is simply kicking the can a little further.

With interest payments hitting $1tn this year, it is, in my opinion, unrealistic that this is sustainable.

If by that you mean a quadrupling in public debt since the financial crisis of 2008, you are right.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN/

No other first world country adds debt as quickly as the US and the interest payments of servicing this debt grew to $1tn this year.

The general answer is: through proof of stake.

Since this is HN, you might enjoy this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2815 originating from a project called Cardano, which has published dozens of peer reviewed papers (not only on arxiv), presented continuously at EuroCRYPT and works with great academics from “boring” fields (at least to most CS students) such as formal verification.

The main gist in pos (to which Cardano showed the first viable solution that does not have extensive unbonding periods or requires centralized coordination) is that stake pool operators (similar but different to miners in Bitcoin) are chosen randomly to validate the next block based on how much tokens are staked with them. The incentive system to keep these SPOs truthful is outlined in detail in the above mentioned paper.

You basically do not let everyone hunt one complex problem (where all but one miner waste their energy to secure the network) but build a system to chose one to then perform a validation. This decreases energy consumption of the overall network substantially.

Thank you for pointing this out!

Having my fingers leave home row as little as possible is vastly superior to reaching for arrow keys and having to reposition my fingers on home row.

With vi that made immediate sense to me. Switching to HHKB layout made even more sense, because I now can reach both CTRL and backspace easily without lifting my fingers from home row.

I did change my keymap even further, so that arrow keys are mapped to fn+hjkl. This way, I can navigate everything just with hjkl (:

If you are really asking this, you failed to understand the fundamental concept of DLTs.

Why would they use DLT for exchange of (promised) value rather than using banks?

Why would they use DLT for token issuance rather than the monetary policy of the fed?

That’s correct and several exchanges will freeze funds when they have a “tainted history”. Thus, tokens on open ledger DLTs are not fungible at all.

Cash is more fungible, yet you can also link serial numbers on bills back to ransom payments.

In a similar fashion, if you, even unknowingly, pay with counterfeit cash, you won’t get reimbursed for the face value, if it gets detected.

Back to crypto, Monero addresses the aforementioned issues through stealth addresses, ring signatures and ringCTs, thus fungibility of the token is higher.

What kind of build is 75 keys without arrows?

A 60% (no arrow keys) has 61 keys (ANSI) and the next “bigger” one, a 65% has 67 keys and usually already arrow keys.

Is it some non-standard ergo mech build?

Then I could counter argue with another anecdote that I visited thousands of such facilities and in all of them cases of magic healing once the insurance money dried up happened.

Merely extending the scope of an anecdote does not change the fact that it is an anecdote and does not provide greater power to convince.

With e2e vs insecure, there is an objective differentiating factor, while in wine (apart from price, there apparently isn’t).

To leverage your example, it would be like selling “secure e2e chat” (label) at a high price, although it uses insecure tech.

Isn’t sharing it publicly already a counter argument to “I don’t care if nobody knows about it”? Thus you wouldn’t have to falsify.

We could think of a scenario where his neighbor shares information about his (the authors) garden. In this case, if the author would seek measures to delete these posts, it might be interpreted as “signaling that he does not care and even doesn’t want others to know”.

I agree with you that signaling always shows intention (ie wanting something). You can “want not to want something”, though (:

Your statement is illogical on several levels.

This is not a tertium non datur situation.

If donating money is ‘neutral’ then not donating money is ‘neutral’.

I’m not joining the discussion on whether or not this is a charitable act, just pointing out (since this is HN) inconsistencies.

> “While we took into account whether this was just due to what well-off people eat and drink, randomized clinical trials are needed to determine if making easy changes in our diet could help our brains in significant ways.”

So they are aware of the possibility of this effect, yet didn’t bother with it. Sounds like replication crisis to me.

> It's the first step for a major cryptocurrency towards ledger security that does not damage the environment via mining.

Not true. Cardano has been operational with PoS since early 2020. And it’s staking process is much more straightforward and user friendly.

That is likely, if the fake street sign were to resemble a real one both in appearance and context.

If it were a stop sign in a billboard ad, humans would ignore it, though.

> The examples I gave were meant to show that the behaviours that one believe to be "fitting" for a certain worldview, is suddenly not "fitting" in another group.

I think this is where we have different viewpoints. To me, a guiding principle that exists like "optimize for survivability" isn't something that people would actively agree to, hence to "belief" is required.

It is like saying "not everyone believes in gravity, yet it still exists"

> You only have to look at the multitude of society that have survived until now to see that that kind of thought is not valid

Thinking longer term, it could also be that not enough time has elapsed or that there was/is too little social interaction between all players for one dominant behavior to emerge.

It might also be that there is no one dominant emergent behavior, but several, all contributing to the overarching goal of survival (think Nash equilibrium).

> They are not common and you don't lose any money, if they are stolen from banks. if someone obtains access to your bank account and withdraws your money, then YOU have to prove that it wasn't you.

Also, about how common some scenarios are in the UK: https://www.statista.com/statistics/586715/share-of-cyber-se...

> You are not an average user then

any statistics to back up your claim?

> You debit card cannot easily be used to steal money from you even if someone steals it physically right, because especially since covid-19 you are less and less asked for your PIN when purchasing with debit / credit card

Have you tried international money transfers?

Bank to bank this can take 3-5 business days (agreed, western union can be faster, but less convenient) and, depending on your payment processor, can easily cost 15% on the transferred value.

So I argue that, similarly like with the mail to email example, money to emoney is faster, cheaper and safer.