♫ You thought it was a toothbrush ♫
♫ but it was a flashlight ♫
♫ broke out all your teeth ♫
♫ in the middle of the night ♫
3546 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jun 2009
Perhaps you might prefer a Fully Integrated Security Technetronic Officer?
As long as you can link a wallet address to a real person, almost all cryptocurrencies are completely traceable – the blockchain is after all a complete record of every transaction ever made – hence the existence of mixing (i.e. money laundering) services.
There are a few that bundle transactions into blocks in a way that makes them effectively untraceable, but we don't know whether he used one of those. In this case, even if he did it wouldn't have helped!
Google Docs seems to be in for the long haul but I don't use it frequently, so I don't know how useful it is as a productivity tool.
Youtube... well that'll be around forever but you're right that it can't be relied on, with arbitrary, vexatious and even Kafkaesque rules about how you can use it as a creator.
And the less said about Youtube Music the better. I have free access to it through a family account, and it's worth even less than I pay for it.
There was a chart tucked away at the end of Anandtech's review of the Ryzen 7000 that showed what happened to performance when the 170W 7950X was restricted to a 65W operating profile using what AMD calls "ECO mode", here. They seem to be pretty efficient processors, being pushed hard for performance.
I wonder what happens to these Intel CPUs when you do the same, or even if you can.
"Market cap" - i.e. simply multiplying the number of tokens that exist by the last trade price - is especially meaningless in the world of cryptocurrencies, before even considering the significant number of lost tokens. Even the volume is (probably*) mostly exchanges trading with themselves to manipulate the price.
* Ask yourself this: if you were running an exchange that you believed was outside the law, why wouldn't you be wash trading, painting the tape, front-running your customers etc. etc. etc.?
The exchanges make money buying and selling tokens. If they're smart, changes in the price of the token shouldn't negatively* affect them.
And the bulk of the price of bitcoin is propped up by tens (or is it hundreds by now?) of billions of fake dollars in tether tokens.
* This is where the manipulation comes in. Their books are full of degenerate gamblers holding highly leveraged (10-100x) short or long positions. So they bump the price up a little to clean out the shorts, or bump it down a little to clean out the longs. If you watch a cryptocurrency price chart for a while, you'll notice formations that look like square waves. This is that.
It was the loss of skeuomorphism in (Windows) UI design in general that was the beginning of the end, IMNSHO. Now everything looks flat and bland and unintuitive, UI elements are difficult to discern from everything else, as a result there's far too much empty space between them and interacting with the system is generally just a frustrating experience.
Add in the specific case of Windows from Win8 onwards, the window manager is a total buggy mess that constantly glitches out when it's trying to draw things, which makes the whole experience even worse.
WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE WIN95-WIN2K DESIGN LANGUAGE?
Setting SLS entirely aside for a moment, despite the impressive progress SpaceX has made, Super Heavy and Starship remain untested and unproven vehicles. The program has been beset with issues (because they're ambitious and rocketry isn't easy) and the SS test articles are still basically just big tubes with some propellant tanks inside. SH is probably pretty close to functional since it's just the booster but even if SpaceX manages to conduct a successful first orbital flight test, whenever that might occur, there's still a huge amount of work to be done to turn SS into a usable launch vehicle.
It's all well and good to say that SH+SS is going to make various other launchers obsolete, but there's currently no timeframe for that to occur.
But how many Falcon Heavy launches could you get for the cost of one SLS launch?
NASA toyed with multiple-launch options while scoping the Apollo program and settled on the Single Big Launch Vehicle (with lunar orbit rendezvous) for cost reasons. Now, even that isn't a constraint.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting for example that "Republicans lie and Democrats don't". I'm saying the scale of their lies is completely different.
But only one side of politics in Australia, the UK and the USA has been actively trying to undermine or even destroy democracy.
Politicians left and rightAnyone who's been paying attention to politics anywhere in the Anglosphere should know that "but both sides!" is horseshit of the highest order.
As they say, "every accusation by a Republican is actually a confession"...
Mining (i.e. proof of work) is a requirement to ensure that a distributed network of users don't have to trust each other to ensure that legitimate transactions are processed and illegitimate ones aren't. It has significant flaws (e.g. if one entity controls large enough mining resources) and obviously the energy consumption being proportional to the token price is a huge compromise.
If you're going to set up a centralised version of the same system, it doesn't need mining, and therefore doesn't even need a blockchain. You can do what we already do and use a traditional database...
As distinct from actual use cases, this is mostly a list of classic cryptocurrency booster talking points.
a) If I want to transfer a dollar to a recipient in another country using a cryptocurrency, I have to first buy a token (paying a transaction fee to the exchange), then pay a transaction fee to the network to send the token, then the recipient has to sell the token (paying a transaction fee to the exchange). Who knows what the spread of exchange rates will be but if they aren't closely matched to real market rates, someone would arbitrage it, so there's unlikely to be any upside. In addition, there need to be enough buyers and sellers of the tokens at both ends for the system to be balanced.
Also, "traditional" financial institutions are regulated and insured and the money in my bank account is safe as a result. The same can't be said for many (if any) of the "non-traditional" financial institutions that have sprung up around cryptocurrencies.
b) These time delays are a regulatory issue, not a technological issue.
c) "Banking the unbanked"... Cryptocurrencies have failed to achieve this. Meanwhile, there are already services that do achieve this without resorting to cryptocurrencies, such as M-Pesa.
d) No regulator is going to support anonymous digital money because of the potential for money laundering. Governments won't support it either for numerous reasons (terrorism, general surveillance etc.)
e) Central banks can control inflation (to varying degrees of success) because they control the circulation of money, i.e. by creating or destroying it. We moved off the gold standard because the lack of control turned out to be disastrous.
A Skylab article just as more (likely American) space junk falls on Australia!