Posts by doublelayer 9408 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Feb 2018
Chance certainly plays a large role in both, but you've pointed out why agriculture is more advanced technologically; using the labor of fewer people, it can support a larger society. Pretty much every technological advance has taken this form. That they have side effects, environmental, sociological, or otherwise, is not in dispute. Those can be extreme enough that they outweigh the benefits, though we get into various ethical or moral discussions if we argue where the line is.
I think the sentence meant to say something else, but it's not well-phrased. The sentence is this:
"Farming and settlement turned us from slaves to masters of life support systems."
I think it meant to say something along the lines of "Farming and settlement turned us from slaves [to the luck of finding the necessities of life] to [people who could rely on our own skills and labor to survive]." It's making a technological rather than a sociological point if I'm reading it right.
It's often said, but you have to consider the duplication of stuff. That company's old records were still in the storeroom, but that only worked because the company made the choice to preserve old records as many other companies did not.
The company still existed. If it had gone bankrupt in the 1960s, those papers wouldn't have been kept around unless the owner was very sentimental. Meanwhile, I can find lots of data on more recent companies even decades after they've stopped existing. I have some code here that was written in the early 80s (not open source stuff) by a company that stopped existing in the 90s. I did not work there. I got this stuff in 2020. Digital data allowed that to happen. If I can get it to run well on modern hardware, which isn't looking promising but it's one of my hobbies, it will stay around on my storage and likely be passed on.
The company didn't throw out their paper. If they even moved buildings, it's relatively likely they'd discard the old paper. I'm guessing that, when you wrote about it, the building was quite old and they'd been there a long time. It's easy to copy a backup tape and to send it elsewhere. Physical storage of a tape is cheap and so is rental of someone else's drives. It is harder to move paper records to another town, storing them can take a lot of space and therefore expense, and for records of purely historical interest, many people won't bother.
Digital records will indeed be a problem for archeologists if we have a global cataclysmic event that creates a gulf of time, but such events are very rare. A lot of records that are currently used did not survive such events to be unearthed, but were discovered in more mundane locations. We need not despair just yet.
It wouldn't be for two reasons. The first reason is that reading the code and writing something else doesn't automatically mean copyright infringement. It's only copyright if they reuse the code, which is admittedly easier to do unintentionally if you've read the original. When the clean room implementation is done, it's usually because there's a more restrictive licensing agreement in place, for example where a company could read the source but is forbidden from competing or designing a compatible version. Breaking such an agreement does require the separation you described.
In AppGet's case, it's even more clear. The reason is that AppGet uses the Apache 2.0 license (source). That's a permissive license. If Microsoft wanted to use this, they could have taken it, changed the name, and added anything they wanted. All they would have to do is refer to the developer and include the license. They do that all the time. It still isn't copyright violation because the license states that anyone who wants gets the right to use, create derivative works from, and distribute the code or its compiled result.
If you only care about pictures, that is easy. You can connect the USB cable and the phone will enumerate with MTP. That only gives access to the photos taken with the phone, though.
Transferring files: There are some ways available, but it's less convenient than Android. Emailing the file over is perhaps most familiar, but you can also use iCloud Drive, Dropbox, or an analogous file sharing system. If you want to self-host, Nextcloud has the same integration and lets you keep things to the local network or only equipment you run. Some apps will also have a web interface with which you can do the same, but the former options work with almost everything.
"Only Apple could make it so that a standard like Bluetooth only works properly with other Apple kit without needing an app to make it work when using "foreign" devices."
No, in this case if I'm starting out unfair, it's Samsung that did that. Samsung's earbuds are designed to automatically connect to Samsung phones and have deep system integration to accomplish that. They don't have that in the iPhone and an app bridges the gap with some glitches thrown in. This problem as noted is Samsung's fault.
The reason that was unfair is that Apple did do the same thing--the Apple headphones also have system integration with Apple phones. But in both cases, it's the choice to use headphones that have system integration with a phone made by someone else. With Android or IOS, if you use normal Bluetooth headphones, they work just fine.
No, it won't. You may think that every Log4J jar is called that, but not only do you have the case problem, the version number problem, and the it-might-be-in-an-archive problem, but it can also be named something different if they wanted to do that. If you have a program that is already packaged in a jar file, it can contain dependencies inside of it and it's an archive file so find won't find it unless you also unzip everything first recursively. If you have a program that runs from source, the JVM might be running off a compiled version which has internal names. The files are there for you to find, but they won't be obvious unless you already know what their names are.
Not all of those are necessarily the user avoiding embarrassment. "I've tried that several times" is, but the others could be correct. I don't know if my current laptop has a switch for WiFi. If it does, it's a keyboard combination I've never hit. If I do hit it by accident eventually, I will therefore have no idea what it is and will have to look it up when I figure out what has happened.
Out of curiosity, if I could find a classical usage of "decimate" or its Latin equivalent which didn't mean to reduce by exactly one tenth, would you change your mind? How far back does a definition have to go before you consider it set in stone never to be used in another way? Which words fall into this trap? Could I pick apart your writings looking for a word that a dictionary from two centuries ago defined in an incompatible way and tell you you're wrong about it despite it being perfectly understandable to everybody?
If you're using IT as a really broad category that includes everything where you make the computer do something it wasn't already doing, then sure it counts. Otherwise, they're very distinct. That category could quite quickly be broken into programming, administration, and support. Each of those are themselves very broad and break down a lot as well (programming includes frontend, high-performance server work, and the people who write device drivers. All of them are doing very different things where you can't easily compare the rigor of their work).
I think this splitting approach (XKCD) is the right one. With the single IT category, lots of things we wouldn't normally include would meet the definition. Finance people who know how to write formulas in Excel would count. I'm assuming I'm not the only one to have heard from an Excel guy that yes, he does computer programming just like I do. A lot of businesses have lots of people in front of computers, but their job is categorized more by what they do with them.
I would like to add one more condition:
Anyone who knows how to do a proper CSV import, a Pivot Table, and a VLOOKUP in Excel, and knows when they need to do those things and when they really should be doing something else even if it requires a different person.
I know some people who know how to do complex things in some programs, Excel included but definitely not the only thing, so they assume that every problem can be fixed with that hammer.
No, it isn't. In fact, being redundant like that which adds a whole half a second to the sentence could clarify to someone who doesn't understand that he really does mean less than half. It's also incorrect use of decimate, but I'm accepting that too. We have lots of inefficient phrasing in English. For example, we have the phrase "dumb down" already used in these comments, whereas you could probably cut out the "down" and be fine. It's not an exact science. As long as you understand what was said, it's fine for informal statements.
Or, perhaps, they're not known because these things are basically illegal (even though they don't get prosecuted) so we don't have access to the full list. But don't let that get in the way as you make up unsubstantiated claims of who is using these services.
Zyklon (German for cyclone) was the brand name for a pesticide which was later used as one of and probably the most well-known gassing agent in Nazi Germany's death camps. That was Zyklon-B, and for all I know, German speakers don't immediately associate the word with the gas. Non-German speakers who don't know that it's also a normal word may immediately associate those together; that's certainly the first thing I would think of even if it wasn't relevant and I later corrected my brain's initial assumption.
I don't know how many of you have spent a while listening to synthesized speech, but if you have ever used it in something, you may know that it will guess at the proper pronunciations of things and sometimes get it wrong. One tactic that is annoyingly popular is to expand abbreviations. This seems safe but really isn't. People seem not to like hearing effectively "Deck, 2021"* when the computer could expand it to "December 2021", so it's often unturnoffable. I once used a system that would expand all occurrences of "wince" to "Windows CE", no matter the case or position in a sentence. This led to such annoying sentences as "The design made me Windows CE, but I had to live with it."
That wasn't the only such example. It also liked to expand "No." to "number", which had to be filtered out in scripts because it could result in some very confused users when the answer was no. It expanded all uppercase cases of "ACT" to "Australian Capital Territory" despite there being other acronyms for that. And needless to say it constantly misstated dates between the DDMM and MMDD systems when the day number was less than 12. That's just what it did with English.
*The string would be "Dec. 2021", so if the abbreviation wasn't expanded, it would pause between the two parts.
Look up "could" and get back to me on my quote. Some examples that could help the point: I could hit myself with this hammer, you could eat a live frog (it could be the poisonous kind), and we all could die tomorrow. Maybe these will help you understand what the repliers to the post understood.
I didn't say it was completely prohibited with perfect enforcement, just that there are areas where it is banned and that they could put more resources into making it hard if they didn't mind wasting them for something with little benefit. Unfortunately, the world's dictators haven't always put efficiency over power. Or maybe that's fortunate after all, as they sometimes fall by doing so.
I couldn't easily cut you off from AES, but I could identify that you're making an application that is easy to use for others and go after that. I could shut down your communication system, replace your binaries with compromised ones, or similar. If I did that, I have not prevented you from using encryption, but I have made the widespread use of it more difficult. I could also target you for building a system to evade the communications law and lock you up, gradually reducing the supply of people circumventing attempts at surveillance. Doing this is costly even for the surveillance organizations, but if one cares more about power than resources, they could try it. That's why we shouldn't allow them to try it.
I don't think that's what they mean. A lot of harmful communications can happen, but most of the stuff they've talked about is the public social media or similar services. E2E services don't really work there because every participant needs to have the keys, so it usually means a direct communication system. Regulation of social media is and should be very different than regulation of private emails I send, in that there should be a lot less regulation or perhaps none*. I therefore think that it is the traditional excuse to identify encryption as a problem in order to argue for limitations, interception, or a ban.
* Sending emails which enable a crime is already criminal activity, so no email-specific regulation is needed to make it so. Sending emails which are evidence are already discoverable as part of court proceedings which have rules for destroyed or unrecoverable evidence, so that's covered too. I don't think they need more than that.
And yet there are large chunks of the world's population who don't eat them. Many of those could choose to and don't for their own reasons, but in some areas, it's prohibited at a higher level. I could not make you dislike the taste, but I could prevent you from eating them if I had enough power and the desire to do so.
You can't prevent encryption from existing at all, but you can prevent the general public from having access to it. You can block services that would use it. And if you do those things, you can identify those people who have created their own encrypted communication systems and target them. Nobody wants to go that far that I've seen, as encryption is still of use to some transactions, but China has taken a lot of actions to block communication systems that don't include a forward-to-government option. Other countries have spoken about desires to follow that lead.
They posted information relevant to the discussion I.E. whether the project has maintainers from the businesses supposedly exploiting it. Are you assuming that someone wants to send a death threat to the authors but wouldn't have done it except the link to a public page was posted here? It only takes thirty seconds to find that. Composing a death threat takes longer (I hope). I think your concerns may be unneeded.
"But in general these licenses wouldn't exclude you from using it for free, that is, unless you are a large 'cloud' provider."
I don't like the ambiguity. What counts as a large cloud provider? If I run it on a server and sell the use of that to someone, do I violate the license? That's enough to make the license nonfree and it's enough for me to volunteer somewhere else. I don't need to feed a company that now has the position to do an invasive license check on me. At least Oracle doesn't expect me to fix their code for them.
"Also ones that exclude all commercial use, for example, chef, you could still use in a commercial setting, you need to remove all references to chef in it."
Sorry, I'm confused. I've never used Chef but it seems to be Apache licensed. And I also don't understand your statement: I can use a noncommercial thing as long as I remove it? I know it doesn't count if I just slice off the names (in fact that's something a lot of open source licenses require). I think you may be wrong about this.
Me: "Free software includes some level of generosity, and generosity doesn't always result in profit."
You: "Especially when the generosity is only seen from one side."
It's an interesting ethical discussion. At what point do I have to return the generosity offered to me? If a company offers me something for free, am I obligated either to refuse it or to pay them in some way to return the favor? We would like companies to do that with open source that they rely on, and it would probably help them as well as the community, but I doubt people will tell me that I must find a way to give to a company with billions in profit because I downloaded something for free and benefited from doing so.
Yes, and I stand by this. If I have to choose which project to send my code contributions to, I generally choose the one where I get to use my code afterward over the one where I could then pay them for that privilege. If they want to charge for the project they helped develop, that's fine, but don't expect me to volunteer for their profit. Free software includes some level of generosity, and generosity doesn't always result in profit.
I admit I didn't think of Chromebooks. I would hope that, since Google has been selling these to schools with the claim that they're easy to manage, that you don't need to write custom code to check where one is. After all, all phones logged into Apple or Google's systems can handle autoreporting location for lost or stolen devices. But if that's incorrect, more evidence that Chromebooks are not suitable for lots of locations.
I am firmly in support of the EFF here, but the example cited in the article is not a great way of arguing for it:
For example, a school district administrator posted last month about trying to rewrite his extension under the new APIs and finding that his extension can no longer use geolocation to track lost or stolen devices or monitor battery percentage to know when a battery needs replacement.
If you're doing device management from a browser extension, you're doing it wrong. Identifying a stolen device by waiting for the thief to, presumably, log in as the user they stole it from and then use the school's preferred browser is a fool's errand. The best bet using normal tools is to have a background task started on boot which reports information if the machine's online. That won't survive an erase either, but it will at least not require a very specific set of actions to have a chance. As for monitoring battery conditions, that strikes me as a good example of something an extension shouldn't do. An extension has no need to look at a battery, and it's likely a good fingerprinting technique. That's also something a background task can check and report about.
A browser extension should be able to interact with the facilities and actions of a browser, and that's what Google has been taking away. I think the point is best argued with the more obvious benefits that provides.
It also depends on where you draw the line. Fire OS is basically Android minus the Google bits and adding some Amazon apps, but they're both running Android applications and have a similar UI. I'd consider those the same, but I don't know if everyone would. Does the Kindle count as Linux (the core under the reader application), as its own thing because you can't access the shell or run other programs unless you've hacked it, or not at all because you can't run custom software? It's subjective, but I would count it as not a computer unless you've jailbroken it, and Linux if you have.
That depends on what you think their job should be. How much are their scans needed and how do they need to do them? They'll see some unusual electronic item and require a look at it to determine that it is... an unusual electronic item. I don't see that this helps verify that it's not a bomb in an unusual electronic item, as any information they have about it will have come from the scan of the contents. I don't want to point this out because they might end up taking it. Perhaps the better question is what they could see in a non-Amazon ereader that would prove it to be dangerous, because all a visual check will show them is a flat thing with a different-sized screen on it.
The appropriate level of security is a subjective thing. I have doubts that many of the frequent tactics have any security benefit, and they have occasionally failed more blatant tests. This makes me dubious of the utility of checks as they currently exist.
I bet it's really boring most of the time, but if they ever are curious about what something is, no reason for them to deny their curiosity when they have the power (apart from efficiency or dignity but those are easily ignored). You don't have to constantly commit offenses to abuse your power; once in a while still counts. Meanwhile, I'm also sure there are many people working there who do care about the speed of passengers and only investigate something when they think it is necessary. I'd like to know who they are so I can prioritize travel when they're on duty.
It calls the emergency service if possible, and you can also specify some emergency contacts who will get an automatic message that you have used it, including your location. This feature is a little annoying if you don't know it's there, as there are only two options: call it immediately if the trigger happens or give you a window where you can cancel the call but you don't have long. Inadvertent activation is quite possible (especially for newer iPhones where you have to simultaneously press two buttons which are on opposite sides of the phone). Perhaps they have now made that even easier to accidentally do.
You're factually correct here but it doesn't matter. Apple is completely capable of getting law enforcement access to this data (the key is not an encryption key). However, this isn't new because the data it gives access to is that stored in iCloud. They already give this out if there's a court order. So this neither increases nor decreases the amount of data available or the effort to get at it. Situation unchanged.
"Yeah but it worked, didn't it ?"
Everything works if you throw enough money and staff at it, but that doesn't usually qualify. Did it sustain changes in conditions? Could it survive the loss of the tech staff? Could it run on a modern computer or OS? The answers to all three could easily have been no and technically it still counts as working.
I've worked with codebases that are like this. As long as everybody who ever wrote it is still there, it will work just fine. Try to understand it later without their help and you'll be very stuck. It takes determination to be clear enough that someone can figure out what it does without needing your help.
This only works if they have lots of small wallets. If we know they're large, it means we have identified large wallets. They can only sell part of that by transferring part into a new wallet and selling that, and that transaction is public. Given that, when it was created, individual Bitcoin were worth basically nothing and now they're large, anyone keeping value in 2009 is unlikely to have created wallets so small they can sell them today.
But what if I'm just stupid and they did exactly that, creating millions of wallets to store effectively zero value. We would still know about it, because the date on the wallets' transactions would be old. If a lot of wallets with no transactions since 2009 start having new transactions, someone will notice this. The data is out there, anyone with the desire can access it, and we can identify wallets that have a lot of Bitcoin or old Bitcoin. Since we can do this, we have the ability to notice when someone starts selling from them. A lot of the old ones probably belong to people who forgot or lost their Bitcoin, but certainly not all of them. Any investor should know this and take it into account, as they should with most other limited commodities where the same provisos apply.
Your assumption is correct, but the conclusions you draw are likely incorrect. Before I explain what I mean by that, I want to first say that the situation you describe is not a Ponzi scheme. It is a crime (you use the correct term pump and dump), but it is in no way a Ponzi scheme as future investors' money would not be used to repay fictional gains. I have seen the term used in many cryptocurrency situations to describe criminal activity, real or imagined, and I want to ensure it's used correctly so the discussions are clear.
It's very likely that the creators of Bitcoin kept a lot of it for themselves. We can even identify some people who have done exactly this because the blockchain is public. We don't know if any of those people created the currency or if they're just early adopters, but they have stashed a bunch of it. This isn't really surprising, and it's also known to people who invest in it. They should be aware that some people have large quantities and could affect the value. The same is true for any other limited thing, especially including companies' stock. This makes it a riskier thing to speculate on. At least with Bitcoin, if someone who has a lot starts to sell it slowly, it's obvious from the transaction data that it's them doing so.
Ransomware does have real value. To terrible people only*, but it does. Just as cryptocurrencies have some value from people using them for storage of value (bad idea) or transfers (better, but still not a great idea). In cryptocurrency's case, it's likely that the real value is a lot less than the market cap due to a lot of people using them only to speculate.
* I don't think the people selling services to prevent damage count as they would be selling those services for other security things anyway, so I'm counting the criminals and the businesses that work around them, thus only terrible people.
I think this is their major problem. I'd use a connection with individual SIMs for multiple devices if it was feasible to do so. However, every plan that I have seen charges for each connected device, even if those devices aren't sending traffic. The fixed costs just to maintain connections can easily exceed a hobby budget, and that's before those lines get used. Since that's the case, it becomes easier just to use my phone's connection for cases needing the internet and use WiFi, Bluetooth, or LoRa to mesh in anything else.
You asked, so I'll answer.
"Can you access the App Store from your device?": Yes.
"Is it safe to use,": I guess so. I don't view that as a high bar, though. A lot of software is safe to use without justifying it being forced on me with mandatory payments.
"fast, reliable": Not really. Updates don't show up instantly, sometimes they don't download right and I have to press again. I've had Signal tell me that a new version is available when Apple doesn't think it's true.
"and tailored to your preferences?": Not in the slightest. My preference would be for the old layout where the search and updates tabs were not hidden and where search would at least find the app you typed in rather than show five unrelated ads and go into the results list organized with bogosort.
"Are the apps themselves curated and high quality?": No. They're just what was sent in. A lot of crap apps are there. Apple only tries to keep out active malware and stuff that competes with theirs.
"Can you install them without having to learn what sideloading means?": By definition, yes, but the implied argument is a tautology. People on Windows can manage to install software without having to learn the word sideloading, so it doesn't seem to be a problem. I could as easily say that sideloading should be the only mechanism because then you wouldn't have to learn how the store app works, but that would be just as weak.
I entirely agree with your opinion as based on your facts. Unfortunately, all your facts are wrong, which is why your opinion and the one I'd like to share doesn't work.
"I don't pay more for a book or music as another poster mentioned - that 30% take doesn't apply to that. Unless I'm very much mistaken this morning..."
You are very much mistaken this morning. Those are digital things, so if you use IOS to buy them, you pay Apple a fee even though you're getting the item from someone else's app. You can buy them elsewhere and transfer them onto the device, but without doing that, you're not allowed to buy them from anyone else or even to be told that you have that option.
"My view: if I create an app platform, I can charge what I like on it, with my payment processor, etc - letting the consumer / developer market decide if they want to sustain it."
I agree, and if we had a choice, then Apple could do what they like. Everyone could decide whether they want to use Apple's payments or not. It's convenient, people trust Apple, they already have system integration, so they'd likely get plenty of business. If people didn't like it, they'd pay someone else. By preventing anyone else from operating one on IOS devices, Apple has removed this option.
"Epic's claim is just without merit."
Did you have other reasons? Because both of your supporting ones are incorrect.
No, I think it's honest. I have lots of stuff stored in my brain that is of no use or which I would actively like removed. I can tell you phone numbers for people who I haven't called in a decade and the number might not even work any more. I can remember instructions for operating equipment that is so obsolete that there probably aren't any examples still running. I can also remember embarrassing incidents which have no effects on my life today but which can cause small periods of discomfort any time my mind wanders to them. If my memory was read/write, I could easily press delete on those and put something else in their place (IPV6 addresses, perhaps, because I can never remember them). I think it qualifies as read only.
He doesn't have to go for the kill each episode. In fact, although he has several methods for not being arrested, he probably can't use them that often. He got the project canceled, money from the boss, and if he wants to send the written information to the IT director, he might be able to cast some blame on the boss. There's also a chance, though small, that the boss will learn to respect the BOFH's advice on these matters. When he's had those rare ally bosses, that's often been the starting point. That could be enough for now.
"I don't really understand carbon offset, but in commute terms I must have saved/planted a small woodland at least."
It wouldn't count as carbon offset, but good to do anyway. Offset has to be a carbon-negative activity like sequestration in a new plant so it can be used to reduce the emissions from some carbon-positive activity elsewhere. You have reduced the amount of carbon-positive activities you're doing, so it obtains a similar end result.
In that case, I don't think it matters much. Having such a facility wouldn't do very much over working from home. They could provide some amenities for the office workers that are shared among the remote working spaces, but there's little need to do so. Meanwhile, the benefits of office work with physical proximity among team members, availability of equipment or facilities that wouldn't be installed in a home, etc. are still not going to happen.
For a company, it is just a slightly more limiting (only hiring near the locations they've rented into) and expensive (rent an office rather than buy a chair and desk for an employee) method of getting the same thing they can do right now by having people work remotely from wherever they want. For a worker, it's also slightly more limiting (they may have to move to one of the suburbs with the office in it if they're not allowed to work from home) method. A worker who prefers remote work gets little from this. One who prefers to work in an office gets an office environment, so if they only care about a separate work environment, there's a little value but no other benefits.
That works if everyone who has to go in really lives in that town, which might be possible for a few types of work, but isn't going to happen if the office is big or the people have lots of options. I wouldn't want to choose the place I live because I essentially have to in order to work at my job, because if that job stops being available, I've probably greatly increased the difficulty when I have to commute to wherever the new job is. Jobs in a city entail a commute, but a predictable one even if I switch from one place to another. This is less of an issue if you're renting your housing so there's less inertia involved if you have to move. It's also not an issue if you have some certainty that the job will continue to be available and what you want to do for the long term (if it's your business, for example).
Both. It's relatively new, with a small number of manufacturers, and it doesn't have the kind of usage that other screen technologies have gotten. You can't find very many electronic things that don't have an LCD on them, so LCD manufacturers got a lot of money to improve their products. E-ink is mostly sold on ebook readers and that's kind of it, so they haven't had the resources to get similar levels of technical improvement or price reduction. It will come at some point, but probably will take some time.
Officially, they're based in Malaysia, but their operations appear to be mostly remote with a lot of core people in Europe. The products are assembled in Shenzhen and shipped from Hong Kong, and they use processors from two mainland Chinese companies because those have good mainline support. You can use that set of countries to decide whether you have problems trusting them, but if you think that products manufactured in China are intrinsically untrustworthy down to the component level, Pine is the least of your problems.
Given the success of the Raspberry Pi, I think they have a chance. The Pi was intended for educational purchases, which they've had some of, but schools have often taken the attitude you described where they don't really care whether the software or hardware is open. Yet they've still had a lot of success with the general public (admittedly the technical side of it), selling to people who know what Linux is but don't have the knowledge to contribute to it. Through support and sufficient information for nontechnical users, that product worked. I hope that a similar story can happen with Linux-based smartphones; they'll never get a large share of the market, but if they can get enough users that there's a stable supply of new models and software updates, they will work for those of us who care about the benefits. I can't guarantee that will happen, but I wouldn't count them out just yet.
Well, the best way to do that is probably to put a screwdriver on the end of the handle with a cap over it, which makes for an inconvenient interface to the driver, but it can be done. It gets progressively harder when you want to add even more tools to it. If you try too hard, it won't fit in a hand, will cost ten times as much as the individual tools, will break and be impossible to repair economically, will be hard to use for a situation not envisioned by the original creators, or all four.
Really, I get that the name collides, but the article never says it's based in Cuba or has any connection. Nor does any other article. Nobody is telling you that Cubans did this. The Cuba name was based on technical not geographical conditions. Therefore, you're jumping to conclusions about the reliability of information based on something it never said.
This issue isn't new, but its uses in cryptocurrency arguments are mostly incorrect. It's true that a renewable source that's spiky might have problems providing power when it's wanted, but people usually don't bring their mining rigs to those sources just to use them when it's particularly sunny one day while being powered off all night. They want to get their returns from the equipment, and running them only for little chunks of time is not an efficient way to do that. That's why they tend to prefer more predictable power sources, including hydroelectric, nuclear, and fossil fuels. Waste gas burning is stable (while they're extracting from that location) hence it's being used.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
