Actually, you just indicated you do not understand network effect. Google+'s competitors had it, Google+ suffered as a result. The cost is losing the large community. What little utility Bitcoin has, transferring money with fiat currency conversion while doing so is easily replaced. The transfer can take place with etherium, with litecoin, etc. They are all rather interchangeable with respect to what utility there is here.

If investors get nervous about Bitcoin they can sell and move elsewhere. And most will learn that they were the "greater fool" as the price declines.

But for someone just transferring/converting money. Bitcoin at $120K, $60K, or $30K does not matter. The transfer can take place in minutes and it's typically stable enough on that timescale for the transfer. Its only investors, holders that are at risk.

It's dynamic, but that includes both the increased use of coal and the increased use of renewables. More responsible nations have favored alternatives such as natural gas despite coal being less expensive. CCP policy however says use the cheapest source, less pollution is not a priority. Matter of fact China is suggesting it may continue to increase pollution even after its 2030 Paris Accord deadline.

"[Jul 26, 2023 } It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on emissions reduction. President Xi Jinping reiterated that his country would set its own path on the issue and not be influenced by outside factors, according to the Washington Post and Bloomberg. This contradicts Xi’s 2015 Paris Agreement pledges to reduce its carbon emissions at the latest after 2030."
https://www.heritage.org/globa...

The US has plenty of coal too. Yet we have been moving away from it for over 70s years despite its lower cost. Note the chart "Fossil-Fuel Prices by Receipts at Electric Generating Plants".

"Energy production by source over the past 70 years has seen a shift away from coal to natural gas and renewables ... natural gas prices have historically been much more unstable than coal prices for power plants. Over the past 70 years, the inflation-adjusted cost of coal has remained relatively constant. A much different statement can be made for the cost of natural gas, as natural gas pricing seems to fluctuate over time. See the below line graph for an illustration of coal prices over time compared to natural gas prices over time" https://www.fossilconsulting.c...

Nope. There is a shift away from coal in general. As documented below.

Wrong. You are woefully ill-informed

Note that the chart referred to here shows cool to be cheaper. "Fossil-Fuel Prices by Receipts at Electric Generating Plants"

"Energy production by source over the past 70 years has seen a shift away from coal to natural gas and renewables ... natural gas prices have historically been much more unstable than coal prices for power plants. Over the past 70 years, the inflation-adjusted cost of coal has remained relatively constant. A much different statement can be made for the cost of natural gas, as natural gas pricing seems to fluctuate over time. See the below line graph for an illustration of coal prices over time compared to natural gas prices over time"
https://www.fossilconsulting.c...

Note at all. The CCP chooses to externalize the cost of pollution to gain an economic advantage with respect to manufacturing. The pollution that results is their choice. The US is merely a co-conspirator here. The CCP could have chosen to not let manufacturers externalize pollution, as the west has. The CCP chose not to. The CCP could have preferred cleaner burning fossil fuels as the west has. The CCP chose not to.

The mass excess pollution of China is based on CCP policy. The west may benefit, but they are not in control, the CCP is. And the CCP chooses its strategic goals at the expense of pollution.

To displace coal. So EU emissions would be lower using LNG.

Not true. We have seen declines in the west. In part due to a shift away from coal. Something the CCP could have done, something that would have greatly reduced China's omissions, but they chose not to.

Not at all. The pollution is the effect of a national political, economic, and industrial policies. And what better encapsulates those? GDP, not per capital.

Nope. The USA is one of the biggest benefactors of the CCP policies that externalize pollution to achieve an economic advantage with respect to manufacturing. The policies, the decisions, remain CCP at heart. The USA does not control the pollution that the Chinese people are being subjected to by their government's policies.

Don't forget they're always towing a 1/5 scale 18th century clipper ship.

"the next guy is definitely going to use all the power that Trump amassed, along with presidential immunity from law, to its full extent. That is very scary."

Assuming the next guy is a guy, I'm sure future Presidents will take as examples all that has transpired before. As if ethics are the exclusive province of one political party rather than another. If you think party affiliation is any measure of character you're more deluded than is tolerable in honest company. Prove me wrong.

China is not at 10 while the west is at 15. China is at 11.9 while the US is at 4.9, the EU even less. China exceeding both the US and EU combined, 11.9 vs something less than 9.8. And China is increasing, and allowed to continue increasing until 2030 under the Paris accord by falsely claiming to be a developing nation. And China seems to want to continue increasing after 2030.

"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. ""
https://www.statista.com/stati...

"[Jul 26, 2023 } It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on emissions reduction. President Xi Jinping reiterated that his country would set its own path on the issue and not be influenced by outside factors, according to the Washington Post and Bloomberg. This contradicts Xi’s 2015 Paris Agreement pledges to reduce its carbon emissions at the latest after 2030."
https://www.heritage.org/globa...

Yes, but clearly you don't hear much of what he says.

Consider the complexities of killing whoever transmitted AIDS to you. Family member, spouse, acquaintance...

TDS: a set of beliefs,irrational, illogical hatred of the individual known as Donald J Trump, his statements and actions. Hated despite any evidence or facts contradictory to such a hatred. Such hatred expanded, often, to include hatred of any who do not share this set of beliefs and emotional responses. The sources, impetus, foundations of this syndrome vary, but are commonly and consistently expressed as the described hatred. Often this syndrome is manifested by virulent, violent, and prolonged outbursts. It is consistent with the syndrome that sufferers take violent action against Trump or associates, real or imagined.

That's about the best I can do I haven't looked for any official or accepted definition. Mine is derived from observation, direct and indirect.

The air is polluted by CCP industrial policy in China, not by the actions of individual Chinese citizens. GDP reflects CCP policy, GDP reflects industry.

It is governmental and industrial policy that lets the US produce more and pollute less, and China produce less and pollute far more. Far moire than China could have done had it chosen more responsible policies like the west. US emission down 13% while China's emissions increased 38%.

"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. ""
https://www.statista.com/stati...

The air is polluted by industrial policy in China, not by the actions of individual citizens. In particular by the policies of the CCP. GDP reflects CCP policy, GDP reflects industry.

It is governmental and industrial policy that lets the US produce more and pollute less, and China produce less and pollute far more. Far moire than China could have done had it chosen more responsible policies like the west. US emission down 13% while China's emissions increased 38%.

"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. ""
https://www.statista.com/stati...

I noticed way back that all the papers were done on laptops and many laptops skimp on refresh cycles to conserve energy, leading to a much higher sensitivity to this type of attack. I tried the test-code on 3 different desktop machines, absolutely no effect. Has anybody by now reproduced the Rowhammer-effect on a regular computer?

I run three browsers (Vivaldi, Brave and Firefox) and I have started to note site-rot on Firefox, i.e. stuff does not work that works on both the others. Yes, I am aware both Vivaldi and Brave are Chromium based. But I have not found effects like that before. Before it was more random one of the three not doing stuff. Now, this may be a problem on the Web-dev side or a browser problem. But it is not a good sign.