smachiz

> A recent IMF admitted that DeFi is 10x efficient than TradFi.I am sure once DeFi get a bit regulated and has better risk management principal embedded into code the system will become more efficient

Do you have the source for this?

If your boss says “write me code that doesn’t have a GPL license because I want to license this to other customers in a non-GPL way” you cannot use, or have a machine use, GPL code.

This isn’t about whether or not you’re allowed to use GPL code, it’s about whether you’re allowed to enforce ownership rights against it, presumably.

If you copy GPL code you are in violation, however it happens.

Yes.

Building a tool that facilitates or even automatically copies code and then using it would absolutely open you to issues.

I'm actually not sure what your thought process around why it wouldn't - if you're byte for byte copying something that you, or a machine, saw, that didn't have rights to use (or rather, didn't have rights to determine how other people use it - and you tried to enforce them) would be a problem.

If you're not supposed to look at GPL code, why would you train your model using such code?

It would seem not many people inside the USA care about it either given their market share...

This isn't devs of course, this is just young people.

The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.

That takes time. We call it wisdom. There are no wise young people - only wise beyond their years.

How is that actually better? Like, what part of that makes it faster/cheaper/better?

I don't think they've flown that flight in a lot of years....

That would also result in the return of the property to the original owner once identified.

Maybe no one gets prosecuted if they’re clever, but they would be compelled to return it (or then face possession of stolen property charges and contempt of court)

What's even more amazing is that the person in possession of it would have to identify themselves to bring an infringement claim...

At which point they're open to theft charges.

Bathing in kool aid indeed.

it's not really going to change the lifetime value of a customer, I bet, once they're onboarded. But it will absolutely lower conversion.

People do month to month because they don't know if they'll find value in it, it's totally no commitment.

Asking to think if I'll still like this creator in 3 months requires actual thought... and $9 feels like money whereas $3 just doesn't.

The issue is that a 747 is too big to fly from, say, London to St Louis profitably.

This is a single aisle, small aircraft. It is a big unlock for more point to point, small market to big market flights (and even small market to small market flights).

Flights like NY-FLR without having to transit somewhere in the EU will become an option, at least over the summer, might become an option (if FLR even has customs/immigration).

Certainly true, but start ups pivot and find success all the time. Or redefine what success is if they're early enough and wind up in great lifestyle businesses that'll never be unicorns or deca unicorns or whatever.

I guess the moral of the story is really be sure that you are holding a losing hand, and that you can't play go fish instead of poker.

expensive to build, but less desirable for anyone (but parking) so there's no incentive to build much. It will definitely be more expensive than a warehouse 45 minutes away - even in the most expensive cities (where they do build basements to the extent that they can before they hit subways and whatever).

Hobby Lobby is also an awful company... and is by no means "buying local".

Insurance.

You want your LiFePO4 to absorb the day to day brownouts/outages as well as sunlight variation and charge/discharge, and you want your lead acid there for when you get taken off the grid for 3 days and maybe have your solar ripped off your roof or partially degraded, once every ten years.

You also can afford to capture more energy faster and charge your lead acid slower - vs just dissipating the extra the lead acid can't use as heat.

You're excluding the fundraising capacity and ancillary services funded and paid for by the PTA.

Wealthy neighborhoods have PTA budgets that are in the hundreds of thousands/millions. They pay for after school activities, language immersion programs, music, sports, you name it.

It is shocking the discrepancy between neighborhoods in NYC. Average donation per pupil might be $20 in a poor neighborhood and $5,000 in a wealthy one.

This sounds like you were on the very extreme end of caffeine consumption...

Same as it ever was.

the EQS is like 2000lbs more than a Model 3 - you should compare its efficiency to a similarly sized Model S.

Comparing the mileage of cars that are sized wildly different is kind've pointless.

smh, couldn't even read a press release:

>nder the agreement, Intuit will provide restitution to nearly 4.4 million consumers who started using TurboTax’s Free Edition for tax years 2016 through 2018 and were told that they had to pay to file even though they were eligible to file for free using the IRS Free File program offered through TurboTax. Consumers are expected to receive a direct payment of approximately $30 for each year that they were deceived into paying for filing services. Impacted consumers will automatically receive notices and a check by mail.

$30/year per person who shouldn't have paid TurboTax is not nothing.... especially for people who would have qualified for the free filing program. Getting $60 back is a pretty good day for them. That's a days work at minimum wage.

1.7% doesn't feel like a lot to administer giving away $141M....

most of the actual clean cooling solutions have retention ponds that are man made to use for cooling.

At least in the US, the EPA regulates water that is returned to rivers and streams, including temperature.

Not to say the heat isn't radiated back into the atmosphere from those retention ponds, but that heat has to go somewhere. Better than the alternatives though.

There is no race condition.

The order won’t actually matter here - but even if it did, the “right” thing will happen either way depending on which interpretation of the email you have.

The third transaction got the same response as the second. Which would actually imply that the common reading of that email (he’s getting $25 back from the second deposit is correct, and he’s going to get the entire $9,975 back from the third.)

Not exactly. They’re betting the difference between 8.5% and whatever CPI is in 6 months. It might even be higher in 6 months.

If they refund the entirety of the second transaction, logic follows a third transaction of $9,975 would be correct if you actually wanted to buy $10k.

I suspect that's not what's going to happen though. OP will get a refund of $25 + $9,975.

Depends on the technology and where that limit is.

Increasing bandwidth to the cable head end or FTTN? Trivial.

Replacing DOCSIS 2 equipment with 3.2 equipment? More expensive.

Running actual FTTH? Hard, large upfront costs, but you have an asset with a 30+ year life span that’s cheaper to maintain than copper.

Hah. That isn't really the issue.

Ballpark FMV for 1Mbps for a month is currently around $0.08/Mbps in the US at scale in carrier neutral datacenter.

If you watched a Netflix HD stream all month long, it would cost maybe $1.

But of course it doesn't actually cost Verizon or ATT or Cox that - Netflix almost assuredly *pays them* to carry that stream.

Blaming the users is a ridiculously bad take - the issue is that the ISP didn't invest in fixing their last mile, or is needlessly congested at their head end, and they could fix it for trivial amounts of money.

Not so smart cars have this.

My 2 year old Hyundai Palisade has rear seat detection via ultrasonic sensors - and I believe newer ones are using radar.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/guide-to-rear-sea...

> Newspapers are a red herring because they have limited space and don't solicit opinion pieces from random people.

As I said, Newspapers haven't been constrained by space for 20 years. More than half of their subscribers are digital only.

Anyone is free to submit a letter to the editor or an oped. They don't inherently solicit them. They just actually curate, moderate and only publish the ones they deem worth publishing.

>It is censorship to obstruct someone from posting on some social media site because their post is bad/wrong/dangerous.

Why? If it's my social media site, and I don't like what you're saying, how am I censoring you by saying you can't do it on _my_ platform?

>What else could it be?

Me exerting my rights on my property (my social media platform). Same way I don't have to let you scream whatever you want from my front lawn.

>Under some conditions censorship is acceptable. The law, for example, sets those conditions at "incitement to imminent lawless action". Private companies need to set their own conditions for censorhip. My argument is that the bar should be high, much higher that it is on most sites, and that free speech culture is extremely valuable.

The bar seems very high already for most social media platforms, honestly. Do you believe it is censorship to choose not to allow things to be platformed/printed that are clearly lies?

Is it OK to print lies if no one is harmed (i.e. you're selling crystals to make your sleep better)? What if you're selling crystals that cure cancer and someone buys that instead of actually going to a cancer doctor?

>My historical argument is simply that, in the US, there was a period of openness followed by a period of consolidation. This was the result of the media that existed (nationally prominent papers and tv channels are necessarily centralized). We're heading back to openness due to the internet. Enjoy the ride.

That's just the cycle of things - everything bounces between the extremes. We go too hard one direction, then overcorrect in the other.

The social media age is probably an over correction to openness, with no one fact checking anything, spreading lies rampantly. This was analogous to the snake oil that was the plague of the early 1900s. Do you believe we should go back to that? We stamped that out through regulation and limiting the claims people can make. Is that censorship? Is it bad?

I'm not going to reply anymore, it was good discussing with you.

>It's exactly free speech in the context I'm describing; the idea that dissent is good and everyone gets their say. Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space.

Explain to me how you would get your OpEd published or get on TV tomorrow, today, or 20 years ago. Explain to me how _everyone_ gets to do it.

>Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space.

The point is it doesn't need to be. Newspapers are now no longer constrained by how much paper they can fold. TV is no longer constrained by how many channels can be broadcast OTA or via Coax.

>Virtually everyone should get their say. The bar for censorship should be extremely high.

Censorship is not the same thing as not publishing your drivel. Are you suggesting that if you submit an OpEd to the Wall Street Journal and they don't publish it that they're censoring you? They're making a curated, editorial choice, it's not censorship - they are a private company with no obligation to publish or give platform to your ideas.

>Yes it does. How could it not? And who determines what is "dangerous or bad"?

This is what I'm telling you - in all media formats prior to The Internet, the owner of the platform or editor of the platform or governance for OpEds determined what was worth publishing/platforming and what wasn't.

>It used to be the case that most speech was in-person and local.

Is that good or bad?

>Most people were relatively tolerant and there wasn't a lot of curation.

We burned "witches". There has never been a time in human history where we were more tolerant than today.

The Catholic Church murdered people for suggesting that our solar system was heliocentric.

We have less curation than we've ever had in human history - by miles. We may have over-rotated.

>There was a consolidation in the 20th century, which is what you're referring to. Now things are opening back up.

There has always been consolidation - through money and power. There was an opening in the 20th century, and we've been less constrained every day since the invention of the printing press.