skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> When it does, no nation will ever trust a digital currency again thanks to an impending media shitstorm about how dangerous Bitcoin was.

I don't think it is necessarily going to play out that way. While I can't think of a single use case that Bitcoin fulfills that the alternatives don't, digital currency, of some kind, is inevitably going to play an increasing role in our lives.

What is now known as "cryptocurrency" (blockchain based tokens) are just one kind of digital currency. There are at least 2 other kinds I can think of:

- Centralized databases of fiat-exchangeable equivalents (A "Fedcoin", Amazon vouchers etc)

- Federated Chaumian/Brandian anonymous digital cash systems (the forgotten cryptocurrency).

Personally I think it's only a matter of time before we get a digital currency based on one of these models sponsored by central banks / governments.
First full-scale ship tunnel gets go ahead to be built in Norway
5G is the improved LTE.
Nevrtheless, German kids dont cosplay as SS and Jews. The cowboys in Germany are more about Karl May books which in turn have nothing to do with history.
This is sadly under appreciated. Realpolitik is as essential to understanding geopolitics as supply and demand is to understanding microeconomics.
With that argument anything is a battery if you can find the right buyer. Used panties? Batteries.

I feel like the argument of "Bitcoin is a battery" was never well done in the first place, since obviously batteries usually have to actually "store energy" and eventually "output energy" again. Something Bitcoin does not do.
LeetCode Longest Substring Without Repeating Characters
Sure.

Here you go - https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...

The Vaccine Alliance did a contract with AstraZeneca before the UK. The Alliance was Germany, Italy, Netherlands and France.

AstraZeneca says this "doesn't count". I believe this was around 1 month before the UK agreement was signed.

Here's another article that goes over it
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-s...

And here's the press release up on Reuters
https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...

https://uk.ambafrance.org/Inclusive-Vaccines-Alliance-reache...

And in the French embassy..

You're being fed BS. AZ signed with the Alliance, that contract was turned over to the EU comission. AZ is most likely caught up in giving their vaccine to the UK first and they are lying constantly. See the controversy on their efficacy in the US.
Mining bitcoin does convert electricity into value though (it's just O(1) as you said it, doesn't scale with more electricity added). Mining bitcoin allows you to exchange value on the network, THAT is what is valuable.
I was also amused by the Reddit post - https://www.reddit.com/r/Iceland/comments/mdrz95/into_the_vo...

> So I wonder how many drones this volcano has eaten so far?

to which the OP replies:

> Haha at least 2 that i know of...

which gets a response of:

> This one, and the one before this one where you forgot to hit the record button?

and the OP:

> Correct (:facepalm:)
Sure.
Here you go - https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...

The Vaccine Alliance did a contract with AstraZeneca before the UK. The Alliance was Germany, Italy, Netherlands and France.

AstraZeneca says this "doesn't count". I believe this was around 1 month before the UK agreement was signed.

Here's another article that goes over it https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-s...

And here's the press release up on Reuters https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...

https://uk.ambafrance.org/Inclusive-Vaccines-Alliance-reache...

And in the French embassy..

You're being fed BS. AZ signed with the Alliance, that contract was turned over to the EU comission. AZ is most likely caught up in giving their vaccine to the UK first and they are lying constantly. See the controversy on their efficacy in the US.
> There's simply no direct relationship between the cost of electricity and that of bitcoin that I can see.

Miners get 12.5 BTC every 10 minutes. That's the direct relationship between the cost of bitcoin and the cost of electricity. If miners (total combined) spend less electricity, they'll buy more hardware. If they're spending more electricity, some of them will go bankrupt reducing total electricity consumption.

I'm simplifying it a little bit, because miners also get transaction fees, but those are similar to the main reward and logic still works.
If you think it's unreasonable for people to blanket-denounce RMS based on the content of 1 or 2 of his opinions, then you might want to consider whether or not it is reasonable to blanket-denounce the EFF based on 1 or 2 of theirs.
Or Microsoft is failing. Why would any semi informed person expect our government to be competent at cyber security? Why is more government the answer to every question? Isn’t that how we find ourselves here in the first place?
No, fiat in general is when an authoritative process is able to create something of value on its own, purely because it says that it exists and is the sole determiner of whether it exists.[0]

In currency terms[1], fiat money is a currency that does not have an intrinsic value in and of itself -- the money has value because people say it has value, not because it can be one-to-one exchanged for another resource at a constant rate, and not because it's useful on its own. Fiat money is often issued by a government, but doesn't need to be.

Bitcoin fits both of those definitions. The "authority" that creates coins isn't a human being, but it does create coins out of nothing. Bitcoin has a formal process by which new coins are created and added to the market. That's why people mine -- they mine because Bitcoin is fiat and they want the new money that the algorithm is issuing to miners.

Bitcoin also does not have inherent value, nor can it be exchanged at a constant rate for other currencies or intrinsically valuable materials, so it's obviously not a commodity currency or a representative currency. The closest category that Bitcoin fits into is a fiat currency, or if you want to be more specific you could maybe get away with calling it a fiduciary currency. It has some fundamental differences from the US Dollar and traditional government-backed currencies, but that hardly means it's a completely brand new category.

I don't see any definition of fiat currency saying that "going to jail for not using it" is the deciding thing that makes it fiat. I see a lot of people pretending that algorithmic governance models don't count as real governance models when it comes to controlling supply. But I don't see any reason to believe them on that point.

The more compelling arguments against Bitcoin as a fiat currency compare it to gold, but I find those arguments weak as well, because:

A) gold is a physical item with real-world uses,

B) gold lacks Bitcoin's governance model that dictates how new currency is issued (arguably the most important part of a fiat currency), and

C) because even with those differences I don't see universal consensus that the modern way we use gold in society doesn't also fit the definition of a fiat currency, particularly once you take the gold standard into account.

But whatever. However you want to define fiat, mandating usage isn't an essential part of it in any definition I can find online. Bitcoin is governed by an authority structure that issues new currency at regular intervals. That authority being an algorithm doesn't change that, it just means the "government" controlling the currency is more predictable and less flexible.

[0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
Sure, but that becomes problematic when your proof-of-work security level depends on that. It's inherently fucked.
Buy Knockoff NFTs
> There's no value created by crunching random SHA-256.

Sure there is. It’s a way to reach consensus on a sequence of transactions that defines the history of Bitcoin. This is what enables Bitcoin to be decentralized, digital money. Unless you believe this has no value then crunching random SHA-256 hashes does indeed have value.
<sheepish headslap> thanks!
Yeah, that property is what would create the sigmoid curve in the ideal case: PoW chains aren’t inflationary (rather the opposite) so competition reduces mining margins to effectively zero, which translates to fewer and fewer people bothering to grab at surplus profit as the number of miners grows and that surplus profit goes to zero.

It’s why you see consolidation into mining consortiums. An inflationary PoW chain wouldn’t have that — everyone would be incentivized to mine for themselves (like a gold rush.)
It was "war" (civil war or foreign war, choose whatever you want) and not genocide: the aim was not to kill the whole population but to keep the territory.

It's quite concerning to see so much lack of the least basic subtelity these times... are you spending too much time on social networks ?
no the absurdity is that it can be fixed easily. It's only that it isn't being fixed right now, but there are plenty of altcoins who are aiming to be fix this issue. You can just patch cryptocurrency to stop having this issue, same as any other software.
Would somebody like to explain how a job is a "free association" for people who may not be able to cover a $400 expense without borrowing money? Or are we just interested in hitting that down arrow hard enough to make it all go away?
> Well there is a value, albeit a small one.
> Bitcoin is a ledger.

This is false.

Let's say I am shady business that launders money.

Is bitcoin helping stop my laundering?

No... I just use regular money which can't be tracked so easily...

In essence, bitcoin makes it easier to track money of people who don't mind their money is being tracked or are inept enough to understand their money can be traced.
The radio frequencies aren't necessarily different, but there are options for frequencies that weren't available in lte.

The jury is still out about real world mm-wave 5g becoming widespread any time soon outside few exceptionally crowded public places. Besides network support, a lot of phones don't support it either.
Brockman literally invited people to Edge with promises of Epstein's entourage of girls! It's total bullshit to pretend there's some kind of uncertainty, none of those assholes can claim ignorance.
Let’s scale that to the absurd:

“Harvard closes evolution center after finding connections to Adolf Hitler”

And then let’s evaluate your comment in that context:

> If Hitler wasn't allowed to donate to Harvard, would that have somehow prevented World War 2? Would it have made the world a better place?

In our hypothetical situation, no, it wouldn’t have done either of those things. But first, Harvard could reasonably say “you know, that money just isn’t worth it.” They could also reasonably say “we don’t want the taint of that name on our institution, or to have to explain why we were OK keeping it.”

I don’t think anyone’s likely to honestly argue against the hypothetical school’s actions. In other words, we can agree that there are people so awful that you just don’t want anything to do with them.

Real world Harvard ran the moral calculus on Epstein and came to the same conclusion as the hypothetical one. The only discussion is whether Epstein should be elevated to the level of awfulness that the school should take these actions. Apparently Harvard felt so, and I think that was a fair and sensible decision.
I agree that 10 engineers can’t do everything 10x. Even 10x engineers can only let 10% of the code 10x faster, it might have a deciding impact on the end result. if a software product is all written by 10x engineers, it might turn out to be 2x as fast as the one done by average engineers.

And in software optimization, speeding up a program 2x usually requires 10x more resources. This is why I think the 10x concept still makes sense here.
> "overzealous agent detection"

Great way to put it, definitely going to steal this one!

Our brain's pattern recognition circuits are highly developed and we like to anthropomorphize. Tens of thousands of years ago with a lack of scientific knowledge, who else but the gods could we have pointed to in order to explain the world around us?
it would have been terrible to expect anything else...

:D
Google is adding information about competitors to GMB knowledge panels
> It costs more money to store

That might not be true if you consider that it is dramatically easier to lose $1b of bitcoin by forgetting the key, but there is almost no way you could lose $1b of gold by forgetting the combination or losing the key to the safe.

And if you stored bitcoin for 20 years on a key without moving it, would you really be that confident that after 20years you would still have access to it? That the media you used to store the key on didn’t degrade? That you have the correct password. I can be extremely certain that the gold bars I have now will be exchangeable in the future.

With bitcoin when storing money, there is a much bigger risk of it going to zero when you are storing it.
How do ships compare per-passenger mile?

If we look at only big intercontinental ships, I'd bet they are very safe...
There aren't any cheaper options (e-ink displays are patent encumbered) but Dasung has a similarly priced 13.3" display built with the intention of being used as a monitor if you end up going that route. Even crazier is a 23.5" version they just came out with for just over $3,000.
What does it have to do with the AI chip in the article? That looks the opposite of GPGPU (rendering real graphics)
Ask HN: When will you refuse to wear a mask in public?
I don't see why Bitcoin can't continue exist long term with current sentiments. Some factions think it's a store of value, others say it's a security, or at worst, a money laundering tool. All of these same arguments can applied to paper bills-- and these arguments won't go away in 10, 20 years. There is no prevailing narrative for what it "is", though actors are certainly attempting to craft one. Sentiment in public markets will shift over time, up and down, sometimes dramatically, but nothing's convinced everyone we should all give up on Bitcoin --even after those dramatic falls-- and until that day, it has economic value. The US Stock Market survived the Great Depression, Bitcoin can (and did) survive the 2018 bubble.
In the past it took real effort to broadcast your ideas to the world. People had to really believe in an idea to help it spread.

These days a throwaway tweet or blog post can be seen by millions before there’s been any chance to debate the argument on a smaller scale (and either refine or abandon it)
My point is that you critic to 5G is not only ideologically charged, but lacking of fundamentals. Obviously you don't have enough information about 5G if you think the leap between 2G and 3G was more qualitative, but you decided that this is just a for profit extraction systematic of the capitalism system based on marketing without lacking added value.

This critic could be made about almost all of the technological advances made possible by the capitalism system. Long live "marketing bs" that allows incremental improvements like this one

Regards
Did any of them really admit all that, especially the blackmail part? Not counting Guiffre, as she is the victim.
I just went upstairs and moved closer to the sun.
Added to the parent.
Thanks for the detailed reply.

>Sorry I can't think of a very good example right now

No problem.

I should say that I didn't understand your reply fully, due to not having the full necessary background. But I think I got the rough gist of the first half of the reply, and a part of the second half.

I had learned only a little Prolog, many years ago, just out of interest, only from books, and did not have access to any machine to try it on at the time. But I do remember bits of it, fuzzily (pun intended). So let me take a guess at what the second program means:

>even(0).

That is a fact stating: 0 is even.

>even(X):- r(X,Y), odd(Y).

That is a rule, stating:

X is even if there is a relation r between X and Y, and (comma means and in Prolog, IIRC) if Y is odd.

>odd(X):- r(X,Y), even(Y).

X is odd if there is a relation r between X and Y, and Y is even.

I don't understand the rest of the second half of your reply, at present, although I did think about it a bit. Maybe I need to study it more, or maybe I lack some prequisite knowledge.

>I don't know of any principled way to order clauses in a program to guarantee termination. That would be interesting to have.

Yes, I too think it would. That was the idea and question I originally asked about. I did intuitively think it was a difficult problem, but who knows, it may get solved in the future. I think that would make Prolog quite a bit more powerful.

Anyway, good to know that my idea was not totally off base, at least. Cheers :)
This. This is the answer.

Compression load on the vertical members? Who cares.

Strain on the long cross member? Wood fails gracefully and you'd hear cracking.

Forward-backward stability? Probably okay if those joints are screwed really tight and ideally wood glued.

Side-side stability? Good bye!
Footnotes #2 is rather unlikely. First PoS is not the successor of PoW. Its the same idea all over again. People are rewarded for wasting capital opportunity instead of energy. It only makes sense for them if they get enough return on the capital. Therefore it can not be cheap. Someone has to pay thous stakers. Trough fees or trough inflation. Neither is in the interest of the accentual user of the network.

FBA (Federated Byzantine Agreement) DLT are the real successors to PoW. They provide no incentives for running/"securing" the network instead the people who wanna use it runs it themself that and obviously they have no interest in wasting resources or making the usage expensive.

The second thing that is very unlikely is that bitcoin will move away from PoW.
The miners are in control. If they dont want to move away, people can only fork and at that point the general consensus is that the fork is no longer "the real bitcoin".
> But the people who are most likely to lie or spin the truth for personal benefit will be those who own it and want to see it succeed

Does it matter why they are lying or spinning the truth? The only thing we should care about is that they were lying, so we need to look at the arguments themselves, otherwise we risk loosing impartialness because of our own feelings about cryptocurrencies.
I don't think calling it something else is going to remove people's personal stake in the behaviour. When I said reasonable person, I meant an objective observer. People with ulterior motives and something to gain will tend to prevaricate if it's in their interests to do so whatever terminology we use.
Compare it to Harvey Weinstein. Half of Hollywood knew he is a pig for decades, were exposed, but are still in their positions.
I'm guessing here, but I think dandanua wants a world where people would listen to smart people like him to get their "true" information so that they don't have to waste their time and energy to refute "total nonsense". He'll be your savior.
A robot transports you (car). A robot decides your credit rating. A robot makes your clothes (weaving machine).

How is a robot wiping your backside any different?
>>> It would be very helpful if Twitter let accounts tag tweets into categories, <<<

Something close is ‘Topics’ where Twitter automatically categorizes tweets into Topics such as Programming, Sports, Startup, etc. You can follow a topic and thus see only tweets in that group. So Mr A sends 2 tweets - one about his kids and the other about Python. If you’re following the topic ‘Programming’, you’ll only see the second tweet
I disagree. 2048 has more buzz value.

People would describe it to their less tech savvy friends to explain the meaning of a the power of 2.

48 is 84 transposed.

It’s closer to the present and likely all of it would be possible with today’s technology.
This is a really good read. I absolutely love the entire Culture series.
“ It absolutely sucks on the bottom rung, yet those on the bottom know that they have very few if any better options to provide for their families. (...) there is a massive amount of unhappy people that are tired of getting squeezed by anyone with authority (...) the hilarious thing is that so much human despair can be alleviated by just acknowledging how hard it is down there and giving the bottom rung an extra quarter or two an hour every few months“

How do small increases in compensation at the soul-crushing job help solve these people’s problems? If anything it sounds like it makes it even less economically viable to leave the dystopian environment they are in.
Maybe it's gotten some steam on Twitter now, but it was drafted in 4chan. I saw early drafts in /g/. I think the 4chan culture is what's motivated the signers of the counterletter to be mostly anonymous or unknown.
I've always been stunned by how irrelevant the ads were on my Kindle, until I became so annoyed I paid the fee to turn them off. Ads for Kindle ebook titles I had already purchased, ads for household cleaning products, ads for books in genres I have never read (romance), etc. My spouse still gets them on their Kindle so I can see things have not improved one iota.

I actually found it a bit offensive, as in "how stupid do they think I am to be tempted to buy a book I already bought from Amazon", mixed with being puzzled and confused over why a company like Amazon would do such a disservice to its shareholders by doing advertising so very poorly and leaving money on the table.
It just depends on which parts of the system you're focused on.

We'll continue to bridge the gap between monetary -> electrical energy. A bitcoin is a store of monetary energy, and the bitcoin network is readily available. We're building solutions on top of the network to more quickly and easily convert that monetary energy to electrical energy.

It's somewhat analogous as converting readily available wind (kinetic energy) to electrical energy. There is a large gap between the two forms of energy, but we're continuing to close it.
Mesa Considers Dropping Default Support for 16 Year Old x86 CPUs
What negative externalities does gold have that are worse than PoW cryptocurrencies? Gold mining is relatively miniscule. There is only something like 3,000 tons of gold mined per year and something like 200,000 tons mined in all human history. For comparison you can look at this[1]. We mine billions of tons of iron and steel every year.

Also the equipment used to mine cryptocurrencies doesn't magically appear. What percentage of the world's mining operations for copper, lithium, silver, etc. goes to building crypto-mining rigs? How does that total output compare to the 3k tons of gold?

[1] - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/...