... for an absolutely hilarious screwball comedy movie.

Anyone with a brain, having just invented a deliberately anonymous cryptocurrency that starts to take off, would NOT EVER touch the seed coins, especially once it became obvious that everyone was watching their movement.

The second that stuff moves, Bitcoin value tanks AND the ultimate destination of all those coins becomes international news. Hardly anonymous.

No, whoever they were, and for literally whatever reason they started the project, they would have created other additional accounts later on, capitalised on those, had no connection to the original accounts, and still be a billionaire now. But just one of hundreds / thousands of others that are all untraceable and not really being watched.

And when Bitcoin mixing services came out, they'd have been all over it - just to preserve anonymity if nothing else.

We know precisely one thing about Satoshi - and that's that they don't want to identify themselves. Maybe there is $138bn sitting in an account they could in theory get access to. But it would immediately reveal information about themselves that may well work against them - taxation authorities would be all over it, press, public, every penny would be traced to its final destinations, etc.

So even if they only had, say, a couple of million in another account... they'd use that. Not everyone wants to be a stupendous billionaire in the public eye. You have to be a bit of a sociopath to be a billionaire at all. And then think of things like security, press, public scrutiny, etc.

Maybe they've got enough to live a life of luxury, that they've properly declared, never have to work again and, ultimately... still stay absolutely anonymous.

The one thing we know is that they understand anonymity. Why on earth would we ever expect them to do the most stupid thing ever and reveal themselves, rather than just hide amongst a large crowd and enjoy the rest of their life?

This is all irrelevant to the question of whether it would leak enough to be a greater greenhouse issue than burned jet fuel. As I established in another post in reply to you just now, that would need to be nearly a quarter of all of the hydrogen used in such a system. That is an extremely unlikely scenario.

Once again, I am not talking about any of the other logistical questions about using hydrogen like this. Only the greenhouse gas issue that came up.

There's no doubt that it's very iffy if this would be more suitable for aviation than other synthetic fuels. There are lots of potential issues. However the greenhouse warming potential as an issue just doesn't make mathematical sense. As far as 37X vs 12X, doesn't really matter since I addressed 37X in my post.

To cover it again, GWP is by mass. So, if 1/37th of the mass of CO2 in hydrogen is released, we're saying it's just as bad. However, we have to start by considering that we're not burning CO2 in engines, we're burning other fuels. In jets, we're burning jet fuel. That's just kerosene. Kerosene has about 12 kWh of energy per kg. Hydrogen has about 34 kWh of energy per kg. There are all sorts of practical questions about volumetric efficiency, etc. but all other things being equal, you use about 2.83 times as much hydrogen for the same air mileage as jet fuel. At the same time, the CO2 released from the jet fuel is about 3X the mass of the original fuel. So, right off the bat what we have a multiplier of about 8.49 we need to consider. In other words, if hydrogen is 37X as bad as a greenhouse gas as CO2, then 37/8.49=4.36 is the actual number we need to consider. In other words, for hydrogen as a fuel to be as bad as jet fuel, then 22.94% of the hydrogen has to outright leak in to the atmosphere. Despite potential issues containing hydrogen, this would be extremely unlikely.

We can get into externalies, but if we compare externalities for synthetic hydrogen vs. jet fuel, the hydrogen is still going to look better from a greenhouse gas perspective than the jet fuel. None of this is to say, that hydrogen would actually be better considering all of the other obstacles, but it clearly would not be as bad in terms of greenhouse contributions.

Leaving aside Ideapads, which I don't think are intended to be the same quality, Thinkpad's modularily varies quite a bit depending on what series you get. E-series Thinkpads are (in terms of modularity and build quality) almost only slightly better than an Acer, for example, and have been for the last 7-8 years at least. One bad yank on a USB-C charging cable can result in you needing to replace the entire motherboard.

Unfortunately Lenovo's Thinkpad division is just as obsessed with trends like "thinness" as every other laptop maker, and to be honest, this didn't start with Lenovo. Remember IBM's wonderful modular designs from the 1990s, with bays that gradually got smaller as time developed as IBM felt the need to trade functionality for some never-good-enough target of thinness, before being taken away from us completely?

> - Putting ports on a separate board than the CPU and ram and such. Physical damage comes to ports, especially charging ports. Having this delegated off board minimizes risk of having to replace something expensive.

This, 100X. I learned the hard way not to trust USB-C for anything critical (like charging) because compared to USB-A and standard barrel-style charging ports, it's trivially easy to break. Like trip-over-a-charging-cable easy. And if, as it is with cheaper laptops, including, alas, Lenovo's cheaper Thinkpads (E series in my case), the critically important port is soldered to the motherboard, you're basically screwed. Replacing the motherboard is half the cost of the entire laptop.

By comparison, in my entire lifetime of owning laptops, going back to the mid-1990s, I don't think I ever had a laptop charging port break on me.

Agree with your other points, but there's also the wider issue of modern keyboards being terrible because of the thinness fetish among marketing people and "tech journalists"...

Don't worry, it's just a little prick.

I took advantage of the EV rebate when it was still a thing and I don't have to buy gas, so my exposure to this suckfest is only the portion of pass-through costs associated with high fuel prices. I absolutely don't consider the benefit of owning a EV negated, because if I still had my ICE car, I'd be buying $4.30/gal gas on top of the increased costs of everything else.

So, from where I sit, the tax credit was a net benefit, and getting rid of it means that the Republicans screwed over anyone who looks at today's prices at the pump and says "fuck that." For someone who would've qualified for the rebates, the cost of opting out of gas went up by $7.5k for a new EV, and up to $4k for used.

I think you give him too much credit. I don't think his "messaging strategy" has any design, nor is it a strategy. It's just Trump saying whatever shit bubbles to the top of what sometimes passes for a mind. And it's random and changes every four hours because he's random and changes what he believes every four hours. Or every four minutes.

I don't think he even "learned" to act like a reality show... I think this is just who he is and who he always has been, albeit with an added layer of growing dementia. He was moderately successful on reality TV not because he figured out how to be moderately successful on reality TV, but because his normal personality, style and complete lack of ethics, morality or consistency just happens to be perfect for reality TV.

So it's not like the editors have anything important to be posting about right? Everything is just so calm and dull but you've got to expect this. It's just one slow news day after another and has been since the beginning of 2025.

There's nothing ironic about it they got what they paid for. People forget that Trump was a Russian stooge for ages. The reason he wasn't bankrupted during his most incompetent business deals is because he was laundering money for the Russian mafia.

Never mind the fact that Russia and the Israeli government both have massive amounts of dirt on Trump thanks to his long-term friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. You would have to be incredibly naive not to know that the Russian government has evidence of trump raping kids. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. We learn from the Epstein files that the Russians provided a lot of girls to Jeffrey Epstein and we have eight credible women accusing Trump of raping them when they were children details of which have been corroborated by several journalists.

The problem is you can lay out all the evidence and proof of that but nobody is going to believe you because it's too fucking insane to think that we elected a pedophile who is under the control of a hostile foreign Nation to be president of the United states. I don't think the human brain is capable of grasping the enormity of that.

You get the same problem with things like the Iran Contra affair or how Ronald Reagan arranged for Americans to be held hostage so that he could win his election. It's just something that you don't want to believe is true no matter how true it is because you don't want to face a world that fucked up.

They can live up to 18 years in the wild. So, if it wasn't injured in its fall through the ceiling, it's possible the porcupine is still alive today to pester other tech bros on vacation in the jungle.
 

We were warned about not hooking up critical infrastructure to the internet back in 1995. And when AI takes over and destroys the world because everything is connected to the internet, we were warned about that, too.

Nah, I already watched the Anaconda reboot. That was definitely not as good as people made it out to be, unless you're Gen Z and meta humor really does it for you.

Seriously. Why are we just now hearing about this?