righttoolforjob

The argument against an app store being controlled by a private entity is to me similar to that of other infrastructure, like broadband, roads, utilities, access to the market itself, etc. It should be available to everyone at self-cost or less. Major and common infrastructure must abide under special rules.

At the end of the day the consumers also hurt, so you should care. If basic economic theory puts the optimal price for this service at 10$ without the middleman, then perhaps it becomes 12$ with the middleman.

Seems pretty obvious to me at least. I doubt your claim that not many would know this. Violence isn't illegal, but misusing violence is. Using the toilet isn't against the rules, but misusing it is.

It states that "The drawing appears to represent a polyhedron with two triangular faces and three quadrilateral faces."

There is no reason to believe it actually is a quadrilateral. The initial question just gives you a drawing...

It is not a pyramid either, since all the lines would intersect at the apex.

So what you have is a pyramid-like drawing and some wrongful analysis of it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The only other interpretation is that this is just a rough sketch and actually G=H=I and the analysis again is incorrect, since GHI isn't a triangle, it's the same point, the apex, which thus can exist in both planes.

The analysis is wrong. There is no reason to believe that AD and BE intersect, etc.

Well, what I was trying to say is that it has been shown, time and time again, that the majority of crypto transactions are just air. Fake transactions to bolster volumes or other nefarious actions.

Transactions only matter if they're for something useful, like trade. Just doing transactions back and forth produces nothing of value.

I was responding to someone's argument along the lines of mining needs energy, the cheapest energy is renewable, therefore mining would drive an increase in the supply of renewable energy, and a forthcoming decline of mining would free up a supply of renewable energy.

I broke this chain of logic by pointing out that renewable is an unnecessary consideration and that mining activities will choose the cheapest option regardless of its renewability.

Furthermore I claim that renewable is not the cheapest. Various subsidies aside, renewable is often many times more expensive to deliver where and when required. The total system cost is many times higher.

New Zealand has cases, so what exactly is your point? The initial argument is that locking borders could prevent the spread of a highly contagious virus into a country. It cannot.

> China has done this precisely. They have kept the virus in check

According to their government...

> for this measure that obviously works

it obviously isn't since the various variations of the virus are spreading

If it was cheaper there would be no need for bitcoin as a driver (and then also to completely waste it, in the broken window fallacy sense).

> mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest

The cheapest energy is the cheapest. It has nothing directly to do with it being renewable.

1) It's too late (for this variant). So you can't act reactively.

2) When would you ever open then (since you need a proactive approach)?

3) How would trade look? I can't think of a single way of halting a contagious virus between countries that wouldn't completely shut us down as a race. The cost to humanity would be beyond imagination. Perhaps on the order of 100x-1000x that of corona.

> I wonder whether there's a way to extend the power button.

Any pair of wires will do...

This looks completely useless. What's the point?

Nothing in the article seems to corroborate being 99% there, more like 10% of the way.

Apologies for my joke.

This is the ultimate lock-in strategy. If you switch from iPhone now, everyone will suspect you of being a pedo and you'll have to endure the social consequences.

I do disagree. The primary responsibility of the manager is to manage and to manage they need to understand the process. The problem is that managers very often do not understand the software engineering field particularly well at all. I've seen it a thousand times that both large and small issues are simply ignored by managers, because they either do not understand them or even if they manage to grasp something, they fail to understand that they need to actively do something about it or just plain out ignore the issue, either with wishful thinking or just a power move where they think the issue isn't theirs to solve and in fact that the issue lies on the engineer to resolve. Most engineers are highly logical and would not bring something up without good reasons. It will have a negative impact if not handled.

I do not manage like this myself and I do not blame my engineers for anything that sits on my head, but I learned these lessons painstakingly through 15+ years of professional coding myself, seeing all kinds of roles at all kinds of companies creating chaos, project managers, product managers, bad managers, bad manager's managers, etc, but also the good ones luckily, the ones that were respected, knew what they were talking about, won the hearts of engineers, etc. This is what I modelled my own path after.