Comment Re: yeah NO (Score 5, Insightful) 293
They certainly do have a choice. They can refuse to comply with unjust laws and then deal with the consequences. It's going to cost them but it's a choice.
They certainly do have a choice. They can refuse to comply with unjust laws and then deal with the consequences. It's going to cost them but it's a choice.
Amazon is behind everyone on self-driving tech. Becoming number 2 for $20B would make sense.
That's a smart move if AMZN wants to buy TSLA: sue it to near bankruptcy then buy cheap.
Bezos is that rufless and ambitious.
of headlines gives the answer "no".
It doesn't require cooperation. It works perfectly well in a top-down fashion without explaining anything to the rank and file engineers and PMs:
* First drive hard to release often without enough time or incentive for testing on all browsers. If it works in the latest Chrome it's good enough to release.
* Second, drive the engineers to adopt the bleeding edge Chrome features ("dog food culture").
That's it. It will break competing browsers not because engineers intentionally introduced bugs but because the process is designed to break them.
There is one HUGE gap between men and women that no one in the mainstream media talks about: incarcerated population. The number of men in prisons is 10 times greater than the number of women. And it's not just the US, it's across the world, all cultures. Why don't we talk about convincing more women to take the path of crime?
But seriously, higher rate of male convicts and a higher number of male CEOs have the same underlying reason: men are more likely to take risks.
I've met Draper personally, had a couple of conversations with him. I think his problem is not ethics. It's basically medical.
His mental picture of the world is very different from everyone else's: in his world anything he wants to be true is true. He wants Holmes to be a prosecuted genius and in his world she is. Then he acts on this fact.
When people praise or attack him for what he says it just feels misplaced. He needs help.
This is the link to the actual post by Cringely with the Apple prediction: https://www.cringely.com/2019/...
Just a few years ago we celebrated 100 years of GTR discovery. Imagine that in celebration of that event Economist would run an article on Hendrik Lorentz without mentioning Albert Einstein. Lorentz was indeed a great scientist and his contribution certainly enabled Einstein's discovery. But wouldn't such an article rise some eyebrows and make people think of bias against Einstein?
When the torrent protocol was invented some people believed it could be the new internet. It's obvious by now that it's never going to happen. Torrents are just harder to use than HTTP. They maybe can save some money in bandwidth costs at the expense of being less reliable and harder to use. In practice they offer only one real advantage to HTTP - by the nature of being distributed they allow for the illegal distribution of copyrighted content.
The same thing with the blockchain. The distributed transaction is alway more expensive than the centralized one if compared apples to apples, no exceptions. BlCh offers just one real feature: by the nature of being distributed it allows for circumvention of regulations. And that's the only sustainable use case that was discovered in 10 years of its use. All other use cases are nothing but marketing, FOMO, or fraud.
As for ETH changing the world, here is a question I usually ask when meeting a crypto enthusiast: "Loan me a 10 ETH for two weeks. We will write a digital contract that I'll return 15. Except, when the contract comes to term I will have no money in my purse. What are you going to do?".
Lottery usually has (a) certain guaranteed odds of winning, crypto has no guarantees. (b) Lotteries are usually licensed with a limited number of licenses at any time. There is literally no limit on the number of possible cryptocurrencies.
The value of major cryptos is unlikely to go to hard zero though. There is utility in BTC and friends which is circumvention of regulations. Someone will always want to launder money and sell drugs.
But it's very unlikely for a legit application of blockchain to exist at all because a distributed transaction with consensus is fundamentally more expensive than a centralized one with a trusted third party. All, and I mean absolutely all with no exceptions, all current companies/products in "legit" space are doing things with blockchain purely for marketing/FMO reasons. All of these apps can be done more efficiently without the blockchain.
EoM
Use case 3.
a. Categories 1 (circumvent government restriction on circulation of fiat foreign currency) and 3 (use US dollars instead).
b. You are not describing a use case. You are describing a feature. Describe a use case and it will fall into one of the 3 categories.
Did I ever say bitcoin?
"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard
