They absolutely can. And always do, because *every* bankruptcy involves "assets belonging to others"; if none of your assets belong to other people, you're not in debt, and can't go bankrupt. The distinction is between "secured" and "unsecured" debt. "Secured" in this context means "you get paid first". Coinbase's outstanding debts -- the loans they took out to have enough money to operate -- will be secured debts. Customers' holdings will be unsecured debts. A bankruptcy court will definitely try their darnedest to settle debts without dipping into customer accounts; but if they can't, well, those customers chose to advance unsecured credit to Coinbase, and that comes with risk.

"That kind of money" isn't that much money. Bankruptcy doesn't mean "no money left", it means "not enough money left". Remember, $256B in deposits doesn't mean they have $256B of wiggle room before they go bankrupt, because it's matched by $256B of liability to their users. In addition to those holdings, they have outstanding bank loans, bond issues, etc. -- for much less money than $256B -- and if they become unable to pay *those* back with cash on hand, bankruptcy is the process by which they get to dip into users' deposits to pay their creditors (the banks, not the crypto bros).

No, I don't think I shall. These are devices that are still available at retail. Would you dare to buy a 2021 car?

I'm not arguing that removing the old protocol isn't the right thing to do -- it is. In any situation like this, in order for things to get better, some people are pushing and others are getting pushed. But you can't seriously argue that people buying these things are "insane", or that they're not entitled to be annoyed at MS (the one doing the pushing).

Yeah, this is totally gonna backfire on them. That's the last time I buy my groceries from the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment.

PICK A UNIT AND STICK WITH IT

Heh. Remember when companies were doing that in Second Life? This smattering of random corporations bought up tracts of (un)real estate and had their summer interns model, like, Virtual Arby's. And then that went absolutely nowhere, because there was no valid reason to have a presence in Random Proprietary Metaverse if you already had a website.

And just like Virtual Arby's can't give you actual food, Virtual HSBC won't be able to do any actual banking, because the medium won't fit their security requirements. It'll be a big virtual building inviting you to go somewhere else if you want to interact with them. THE FUTURE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

I don't think anybody was suggesting that they'd invented the idea of digging holes.

Weirdest simile ever.

"Hmm... how to describe something that degrades when repeatedly used? Surely there is nothing in our mundane physical world which matches such a description. To the eldritch grimoires!"

There is no time -1. What the paper and the summary are saying is that that configuration can *only* occur if the world is directly set up to contain it. There's no way to set up the simulation with gliders and whatnot to eventually *produce* it.

https://m.slashdot.org/story/1...

You were saying?

Christ, dude. It's a worldwide viral pandemic. It's biology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, statistics, and fluid dynamics all rolled into one. You think it's not "nerdy" just because it's not your nerdy?

"Stop functioning" is definitely hyperbole -- hospital administrators are trained to deal with this sort of thing -- but "the majority of infections don't require hospitalization" does not imply "the medical system can handle it". The nature of pandemics is exponential growth. At a certain level, even a small hospitalization rate can overwhelm the system, because it's just not designed for that many people to be sick at the same time. And if you "need hospitalization" and can't get hospitalization, I'm guessing your personal mortality rate is going to get a lot higher.

Wonderful, let us know when your study has been peer-reviewed for statistical significance and sampling bias.

(In particular, the "let it all burn" approach runs the risk of overwhelming the medical system, driving the mortality rate way, way up. So far we've never run out of beds, but we're currently running out of monoclonal antibodies... as we've all seen over the past year, spiky demand ravages the supply chain.)

I don't think you quite understood the GP's point, namely that given the apparently high transmission rate and low virulence of Omicron, dropping any attempt at attenuating transmission and instead attempting to improve overall health (e.g. lowering the risk of heart attacks) could be a more cost-effective intervention at saving lives, even given the "superspreader events". I'm not sure those numbers actually work, but your "hit points" thing isn't really on-point -- the GP was not arguing that being healthy makes one more resistant to COVID.

Erm. You understand that "crippling glibc" wouldn't prevent access to its underlying kernel functionality, right?