Didn't say it was clever (weird take there). My point was that controlling your own storage and using widely compatible cameras allows one to control one's own destiny, as opposed to being held hostage by proprietary "walled cloud" devices.

This is why (well that and overreaching surveillance) why I bought a group of PoE cameras that work with a wide variety of platforms. Store to my local NAS. No ongoing subscription. I won't buy devices that can't be used except with a subscription, or that allow the seller to brick them at will.

It has been an open secret in the cryptography community that Hal Finney was the designer of BitCoin from the very start. Hal died in 2014. Or at least he was frozen in liquid nitrogen so not talking either way.

Besides being the first person to be involved in BTC who didn't hide behind a pseudonym, Hal published a paper that describes essentially the whole BitCoin scheme two years before BTC was launched. And Hal never once accused Satoshi of stealing his work.

The reason Hal had to hide behind Satoshi is simple: The Harber Stornetta patent didn't expire until about 9 months after BTC launched. That covers the notion of the hash chain. There is absolutely no way anyone working in the field did not know about that patent or its imminent expiry. Hal certainly did because I discussed it with him before BTC was launched.

So the big question is why BTC was launched when it was, why not wait 9 months to have free and clear title? Well, Hal got his terminal ALS diagnosis a few weeks prior: He was a man in a hurry.

Having launched prematurely, Hal had to wait six years after the original expiry of the patent term to avoid a lawsuit over the rights to BTC from Surety. He died before that happened.

Oh and I have absolutely no doubt Hal mined the genesis blocks straight into the bit bucket. The key fingerprint is probably the hash of some English language phrase.

The real inventor of BitCoin wrote a paper describing the architecture two years earlier under his own name, Hal Finney. He got a terminal diagnosis of ALS a few months before he launched the BitCoin service, the pseudonym being necessary at the time because of the Haber-Stornetta patent on the BlockChain.

No, Hal, did not keep the coins. He invented BitCoin because he was a crank with weird ideas about inflation, not to get rich. Mining the coins and keeping them would have been a betrayal of his principles.

The proof of this is given by the fact that Hal did not in fact get rich from BTC despite being the ''second' person to join the project. Nor did Hal ever complain that Satoshi took the credit for what was very clearly his work. If Hal had been just another person coming along, there would have been every reason to keep the cash.

And we do in fact know Hal ran mining servers from the start and that he ended up in serious financial trouble due to his ALS. The freezing his head thing came from donations.

Craig Wright does seem to be the last of the three early advocates alive but that doesn't make him Satoshi. Wright has never shown the slightest sign of being the sort of person who builds such a thing and in any case, Hal's name is on the much earlier paper.

No. It's because a now-convicted criminal was one of the largest donors in the election cycle, and the money that very likely swung the outcomes of elections was illegally gained via fraud and ponzi schemes. Seems like something worth getting to the bottom of. I can't imagine anyone not simply trying to protect their own "team" wouldn't want this fully resolved. And I'm not a republican.

Everything he said that i saw was about being more decisive, not working longer hours. In principle, being more decisive should save time, not take more. I'm not predicting specifically how this plays out, but it could be he is trying to maintain work life balance, staff appropriately, make quick decisions, and win. If that's true, I hope he does. For what it's worth, I've worked with people from both Amazon and tesla, and on the balance, it's night and day in terms of culture. Amazon ain't perfect, but a lot better than tesla. I would at least give bezos a chance, because he is a lot better than musk. If those are the two options, and it may be, I know who I want to win.

The CEO in this case is the renowned James Dolan. His main claim to fame is inheriting his father's fortune derived from Cablevision in the 70s and 80s and running businesses badly. He bought the New York Knicks and has made them a laughingstock for 20 years. He also owns Madison Square Garden and other venues and cable properties (again, daddy's money). He is in a "band" in which he essentially gets gigs by controlling the arenas ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...) and seems to have few, if any, actual fans. He is also well known for having his venues use facial recognition to ban his enemies from events, including people critical of him on social media, low-level staffers working at law firms that are involved in litigation with him, etc). https://www.nytimes.com/2022/1... So, in this case, if an executive is claiming abuse by James Dolan, given his resume, I'm tempted to believe it. He is petty as hell and hasn't done anything in my view to distinguish himself as a CEO other than being born to wealthy parents.

Which regulation specifically? It's a reg to have friction brakes, but I'm pretty sure they have not banned brake by wire, or there are a lot of illegal EVs on the road. Take a look at that Bosch link I sent, it's pretty explicit how it works. Also, just think about it - unless there were independent pedals for brake regeneration and friction brake application, how would it work if it were NOT brake by wire?

I would be interested in a citation for that. EVs I'm familiar with tend to brake by wire and have an integrated brake controller that blends regen with friction brakes based on demand from driver, but driver doesnt have direct mechanical control. Example from Bosch below. Given that the vehicle lost brake control and torque control at the same time that the dash lit up like a Christmas tree, my money is on software. That said, this should never happen, and I would consider it a gross failure of engineering principles including functional safety and ISO26262 standards. I would hope this isn't indicative of what we can expect from China-based EVs like SAIC-owned MG. https://www.bosch-mobility.com...

I mean, Facebook literally suppressed discussion of lab leak posts as disinformation. Washington post fact checkers also called it disinformation.

He doesn't need to be a microbiologist if he has identified patient zero, which he likely did. Also, the epidemiology community closed ranks immediately to claim lab leaks weren't possible, so their leaders have a clear conflict of interest, as they demonstrated early in 2020. Best case you'll score enough points to muddy the water on the origin. But what happened was an orchestrated campaign to suppress free speech on the topic, which was now very clearly the wrong thing to do. And yet you continue to defend it.

I might have thought the origins of the most lethal pandemic in 100 years might have made that list. COVID is now considered by the FBI as reasonably likely to have escaped the Wuhan lab. That was a topic roundly assessed by the academic community and mainstream media as a "conspiracy theory" during the 2020 election cycle and through 2022 and into 2023. I would suspect that topic - one that I suspect drove a lot of traffic - was suppressed as disinformation on Facebook at the time the data for this study seems to have been collected. You would think they would at LEAST remove COVID origin "disinformation" from the study, since that "disinformation" proved to be likely correct, or at least consider the impact of inaccurate fact checking on the results.

The role of protecting free speech used to fall to groups like the ACLU in previous generations. Now they've gotten aboard the "censorship is GREAT" train, so nobody with a strong voice is left to defend free speech, online or anywhere else. I'd rather not have Elon be the champion for...well, anything.

They do not have good intentions, unless the goal of building a comprehensive surveillance state qualifies. I don't think it does.

"Anyone who signed up for Gmail (or those who actively use a Google account for that matter) gave up their privacy at the door Bear in mind that" That wasn't the Google that they claimed to be around 2003 when I signed up. What you say is demonstrably true now, but it's hard cutting the cord on a 20 year old email address, for instance. For those of us who can't easily go "cold turkey" on Google, trying to compartmentalize their services may be desirable.