pull down to refresh
I was speaking with someone who had a property somewhere in that country. He said that it has some pretty weird rental laws that made it hard to let your place out to people, because ex-rent paying renters take advantage of the situation. So, you get stuck with people in your property that don't leave. He also said it also made it hard for people to rent a property. From that perspective, it seemed pretty messed up.
Do they have a nine-member committee so they can't result in deadlock? Four nay, five aye doesn't exude much confidence. I wonder if the nineth member flipped a coin.
I suppose it's a very unfortunate reality or externality of government(s) attempts to denounce the thoughts of the people it obstensibly serves. If you are in the business of setting up thought-steering mechanisms, nudge units, or whatever cuddly name you wish to give it, you have to anticipate that there will be instances of rebellion of thought.
If you participate in ruining lives through massively unpopular policy, it is all you can expect. I don't condone any thought policing, deplatforming nor debanking. If courts, banks and government are going to defend that position, it amounts to totalitarianism and the break down of rationalism. The decent into the abyss of dehumanization.
Do I agree with what the person said? That's a loaded question, and all I can answer is that the rationale of being of such an opinion is a reaction, and to be expected.
Should it matter who said it and the influence they have? I think what matters is, you are bound by your position or profession to not be making political decisions. If you are a doctor, you have sworn an oath, to treat everyone equally, a reporter has some duty to report facts and not color them, a police officer, should probably not engage in their own biases, a judge, a bank manager's ideals shouldn't prevent them from providing service impartially, despite their own feelings.
All that's left is to point out that an utterance, be it a tweet, is not a statement of intention, a contract or any attempt to solicit action. People say all kinds of unresolved and meaningless things. That's what it means to have a tongue. The idea that the honous rests with a speaker to police their own thoughts is ridiclous. If there's a problem that speech is somehow enveloped into a formal record when you press a send button, then we can continue down the road of nannyism and litter platforms with more warnings. and disclaimers as such.
People will inevitably leave platforms that only condone certain ideas, and you are left with the same type of 'emperor without clothes' scenario, where platforms and channels that churn out government-sanctioned media go unwatched and becomes the echo-chamber of one hand clapping. God save the townhall.
Must have been a long time coming. I seem to remember Max Keiser talking about the melt value of copper pennies being higher than the face value some time at the beginning of the millenium.
Was the main constrain identified in the current artificial intelligence innovation paradigm the memory required to run the calculations, and that this is a constraint due to the economic cost of scaling the physical compute requirements (akin to biological nutritional requirements of a theoretical hive-mind 'super-intelligence' of larger networked brains?)
Just wanted to check my comprehension of the main criticism.
Could it not be argued that from the perspective of the laws of physics, when you rearrange the sequence of zeros and ones, you are not destroying anything at all?
Doesn't this tale have two sides? The AI goldrush story will undoubtedly woo any data centre to switch from ASICs to GPUs when returns are attractive. They are businesses after all. But won't following the puck for higher returns eventually result in to over-saturation there when capacity is met?
Thinking about Altman's lack of a coherent response to questions on funding his expansive vision, or that microsoft ships services that few are willing to pay for it, I'm guessing there will be times when it's profitable to switch back.
I don't know, but to me it seems like nobody wants to give the UN $23bn, in the same way nobody wants to give their own money to help a stranger keep smoking crack.
I used to read the FT, but I stopped reading when I realized there's no value anymore, when the entirity of financial markets began to operate on insider trading. I suppose there's always still the use in observing and learning how narratives are spun.
25 years ago, you could still read it and glean some insights, follow the money, read it again later and see that you could have made money from reading it. Now, it just seems to be either columns laden with political persuassion (like this one) or a kind of financial almanac (not much use unless you are Marty Mcfly.)
You can palpably sense the FT's HR policy selecting only views supportive to trade dynamics that benefit their own board. Certainly never overstepping the boundaries of questioning the status-quo's narrative on everything that eminates from its pro-global ideological agenda. Would anyone actually believe that their is no underlying policy to cast aspertions that challenge the status-quo or favor the institutions that the publication represents?
Like I read someone else write today about a completely different politician, in a completely different geographic region. "I'm not a particular fan of x politician, but if you can't see a smear campaign for what it is, I can't help you."
I'd buy the one that was not some weird, communism-era-insprired synthetic gruel masquarading as an authentic animal product that came from a farm.
I was thinking many of these tiny ad-like transaction were all of the probes. So, they just use HTLC, then release it. Thanks for the explainer. That's much clearer now.
I wonder whether they'd be some kind of WOT system for nodes that are well-established and known to you. A rule set, like, has this node opened a channel to you in the past, did you initiate a channel with this node in the past, has one of your trusted nodes opened a channel to this node in the past, and so on.. that might develop.
Sounds curiously like the L1 spam problem, in that if you have some filters it stops some spam, but if your channels are all zero-fee, it's kind of like leaving your letter box open to mail or anything that will fit in that hole.
Default channel base-fee to 10 sats, what would that do for probing?
Meant to say sub-optimal
I see! But if a node processes a payment through a channel, ergo, you know that its capacity is greater than the payment. Isn't this comparible to paying for a chocolate bar in cash with a $20 note and the other witnesses knowing you have $20? I.e. participation requires some kind of reveal?
Does the privacy problem lie with network stats analysis tools?
The spam part is clearer as a problem to me. However, if all channels have a minimum fee, does this not help?
Long reads, but enjoying them. Thanks.