Comment Re: I would take them seriously but... (Score 1) 129
You read the article?
You must be new here.
You read the article?
You must be new here.
Chocolate Rain and Numa Numa went pretty viral....
You might be in the minority if you haven't heard of them. Who do you remember as "stars of the internet" instead?
Did you ever boink and bonk? +++ATH0? Use a boot and root disk? Were you too lame to read BitchX.doc?
I've just started teaching math. The students reach for the calculator IMMEDIATELY.
I asked what "half times a half" was, expecting a quick and obvious answer. I got guesses. "Is it zero?" "One!" "I hate fractions!"
Converting percentages to decimals is also atrocious. "What's 5% as a decimal?" "0.5?"
13 and 3/4 as a percentage was the next confusion.... was it 0.1334?
These students are 15-16 years old. I think we lost something along the way when the tool wasn't being used just to automate what we already knew, and it became a way to do the thing we really *should* know.
I mean, you could argue that no one needs to understand numbers because computers do, but I would hard disagree. I see a similar argument for AI, and if all code is generated by machines, well it could go either way: either all code is perfect, or when the code IS bad, few people will understand *why* it's not working and will just twiddle their thumbs waiting for an update. We'll get cookie cutter crap, and live in an Idiocracy style society.
Anyway, just weighing in on the "calculators will rot our brains" part, because from what I've been seeing, they really have, and I wouldn't have believed it either until now.
I run an N100 as my daily driver - don't be fooled by the specs, these are VERY capable machines. I don't know what you consider "heavy browsing" but mine keeps up with everything I need it to do. You're right about the gaming part, but considering that games are mostly just interactive stories for drooling idiots that require ever-increasing hardware just to render a world that we used to use our imaginations for in books, I don't consider that a negative.
The best way to be productive is to not have a gaming capable machine. It's amazing what else you can do with your time apart from click an enemy and feel like you accomplished something. Spoiler: Clicking a mouse is not a skill.
Inkjets are a thing of the past. They're cheaper up front but the ink dries out, costs too much to replace, and are slow.
I've tended to favour Brother printers because the HPs have some sort of lockout of 3rd party toner, and Brother is inexpensive. Just my 2c.
This is your brain on Murica
Anonymous Coward Extraordinaire
Keep it going, like an Olympic torch
A pack of 20 cigarettes here in NZ costs about $40NZD. That's ~$5NZD worth of cigarettes and $35 of combined tobacco excise tax and 15% sales tax (GST).
For reference, 91 octane petrol is $2.35/L, and a Big Mac is ~$7NZD
Yet people still smoke.
Only 6 years ago they were half the price. I think there was a staggered increase over a number of years (every January the price increased), which has finally stopped, and so this is the next step to becoming "smoke free".
If you're using Nicehash as an argument for "Bitcoin mining being done on GPUs" - that's not the case. Nicehash typically has ETH miners, getting paid in BTC. You can make the implication that you're mining, and getting BTC for it, but it's not Bitcoin mining. You're not doing anything with the Bitcoin blockchain/network, apart from getting paid in BTC.
Think of all the electricity wasted by all the GPUs in the world that _aren't_ mining Bitcoin. Merely showing textured 3d models to gamers.
The gaming community either needs to rapidly move to shitty integrated graphics as we used to, or be abandoned by all with any shred of environmental concern.
Shame on my free money dropping slightly. I have solar, I mine, I get Bitcoin. I HODL, I believe, I wait. You can be a no-coiner if you want, that's your choice. I'll throw you some crumbs in the future.
Bitcoin transactions currently take an average of 10 minutes, while only processing an average of 5 per second.
It's already incredibly, unusably slow, and there's every reason to believe it will scale very poorly.
I think 10 minutes is the maximum (assuming normal fees), not the "average".
I've sent BTC that takes a few seconds, but shows as unconfirmed. If you're buying a cup of coffee, you can walk away. If you're buying a Lamborghini, you can afford to wait up to 10 minutes for it to be confirmed.
Have you actually tried sending BTC and watch it appear?
Well interpret it how you wish. Use Bitcoin if you want, otherwise don't. It works for me. All I'm saying is you don't need to wait for minutes/hours to see the money come through, and eventually it changes status from "Unconfirmed" to "Confirmed", but in practice they seem to be the same thing. The BTC leaves your wallet straight away, so double spending is not possible, although feel free to prove me wrong.
I can send BTC to people and it appears as an "unconfirmed" transaction within about 10 seconds usually (I *think* once it appears in the mempool?). Your transaction doesn't need to be "mined" into a 10 minute block before it appears in wallets, which for most people is good enough, since it's impractical (I won't say impossible) to reverse/cancel a transaction. There are ways if you opted for a reversible transaction (RBF - Replace By Fee) in the first place, and it costs you BTC to do this.
But if you're buying a coffee for a few satoshis, a few seconds and little risk to the vendor is probably "good enough".
Try using it before you make false statements.
Exceptions prove the rule, and wreck the budget. -- Miller