Comment Re:This is legitimately infuriating (Score 1) 93
The entire process could be done on a single server
Pretty clear you don't even know how bitcoin works... so why are you getting so mad?
The entire process could be done on a single server
Pretty clear you don't even know how bitcoin works... so why are you getting so mad?
Being curious isn't illegal. If this even makes it in front of a judge, there isn't a hope in hell that this isn't deemed an unconstitutional search
This would be ripe for killing your political opponents among other things. You are either trolling or braindead
C# can target and perform on those system and run just fine. It isn't like it's an on-the-fly interpreted language. It compiles through the CIL, then translated to machine code.
Which C++ would that be? The one where it is C with class objects, overloading, and subclassing, or the modern one were auto pointers are used, template are abused as a way to do "generic programming", and exceptions are used for the most mundane "errors" instead of exceptional ones?
Why is there harping on "static analysis tools" as the main mitigation suggestion? Running you code in debug mode is going to catch a lot more runtime faux pas than random offline analyzer tool
It's not that hard, actually. 99% of DNA is the same, but how the DNA is arranged is pretty unique per species.
Except that they aren't doing full genome sequencing (which is vastly more complicated and vastly more expensive). They are sequencing only specific regions of the genome. It would be similar to comparing the Bible to the Koran based on how many times they use the word "Thou". In the end you'll know they're both books and they're different but you won't know the chapter counts or the year of publication.
Surely a basic DNA test would at least check the number of chromosomes matches up.
Not necessarily, and for more than one reason.
It's why certain genetic diseases in humans can't be found in dogs exactly - the DNA that is problematic would exist in a different chromosome on a dog.
That doesn't apply here though. Sequencing technologies are not biased towards or against particular chromosomes, and the chromosomes are not sorted out before sequencing. The whole sample goes in and primers bind to anything they have affinity to. Sequencing then proceeds regardless of whether it starts on chromosome 4, 16, 21, or some other chromosome entirely - as long as the start and end are on the same chromosome. And if you're looking at variable regions within genes, the likelihood of those starting and ending on the same chromosome is exceptionally high.
CBC Marketplace did such a test nearly a year ago... and yes, they even submitted human DNA as well. Quite a few of the tested companies did detect it as "non dog DNA".
Which may just mean that the other company had included some additional tests to look for "non dog DNA", and this company did not. That's a smart control that this company should have thought of, although depending on the scenario it might only tell you about contamination, not complete substitution.
Theyd be more successful if they cancelled tax debt.
Are you seriously trying to sell Trickle Down in 2024?
There is a reason data hoarders exist. People like you think shit is replicated and stored in perpetuity by "the internet", only to find no one kept it, expecting other people to have. There is plenty that is gone forever because of said reason
Neutrinos have bad breadth.