0134340

Yes, that's a feature or bug, however you see it, that's universal in capitalism, even communism or socialism what implementations I've read about. I guess if one isn't happy with those that have power in one system, a person should switch to another system. It's just so universal that I don't think there's any other way around it other than switch systems as none are perfect, all insofar as I can see are susceptible to the power of consensus.

We've tried to mitigate it with constitutions in the political world and it helps to some extent but many would agree that there is still an exploitable hole in that those with power can use their own to gain more or mitigate risk. And any time you mitigate that feature/bug too much you run the risk of decreasing reward for work and stake, thereby delegitimizing the system itself or in the case we speak of, your currency. So pick your poison.

It doesn't exist within its own ecosystem, as I mentioned. Stake is derived from work and work itself is a security, ie, your work is secured by prior works. Everything that built it needed prior work and everything to secure it needs prior security, up the ladder you'd have yourself to secure and work for the currency, your community along with its own governance to state level and on and on up the ladder. PoW and PoS both exist within the same ecosystem.

And Stake is derived from Work. Some of you assume PoS exists within its own ecosystem. Even in PoW, the work is derived from previous works, ie, the work required to buy and build the hardware and pay for electricity, etc.

Yes, that's the problem with validation through concensus which is universal in currency. With enough power (nodes) you can delegitimize other stake holders.

Centralization meaning those who have more gain more? I'd love to hear about any currency that doesn't have this feature/bug. Those who gain power tend to be able to acquire more by bootstrapping from prior power; it's pretty much universal. Even PoW has its own form of centralization in that those who have more can become richer and more easily gain therefore leading to maturation (centralization) of the currency.

Currency and local government can be completely divorced and I think crypto will prove this in the future. I don't think governments will begin to care one way or another as long as they get theirs and taxes are paid. If you can score currency from around the globe and bring it home to a more local domain and pay in to the system where you live, they should have no problem with it.

And the validators, PoS anyway, use very little energy even compared to traditional coin minting.

>If the devs have a 51% share of staked ETH and they never sell any ETH then even if you buy all ETH on the market you will never get beyond 49%. The only way that can happen is if the devs to decide to hand over control to you voluntarily.

In that case the currency loses value to other currency competition because currency, Eth in this case, doesn't exist in its own ecosphere. The big holders still have an incentive to sell some portion of it.

PoS signifies the power of currency just as PoW does. The whole basis of PoW is to expend work and in return exchange and project power. Stake is projected power earned, sometimes not because not everyone is said to earn what they get, from other expended power. The whole world works on powers, be it financial, physical, etc and we're all exchanging one for another. As long as those powers have power to project themselves and protect themselves enough to propagate well, either through military or math (through the network), they are valid. The network is its own authority (much as the military or government is a network) and through various governments, hard powers, cryptocurrencies have also recently earned some legitimacy that way.

To me this all seems silly. You can trade sticks and if someone imbues them with symbolic powers and everyone agrees, it can just as well become a currency. We can disagree from here to the moon on what currencies or methods therein should or shouldn't have legitimacy but if no one cares, you have little to no power to change it. If you can get a big network behind it, there's legitimacy of authority whether you agree or not.

> Therefore information can enter the Blockchain and be stored there, but it cannot have impact outside the blockchain because the world isn't being simulated inside a decentralized blockchain.

And to reiterate, economic predictions are very hard due to us not living in a closed economic system, other powers influence economics, they don't exist just within their own sphere. You seem to imply this but seem to forget that your same argument could also be applied to traditional fiat. Blockchains may be decentralized but they have their own authorities and realities to which they're bound to. What happens in the crypto world very much affects the non-crypto world as we've seen.

>Another common trap is to build a programming language where the only significant project written in that language is the compiler.

The common theme here seems to be that you're railing against domain discretion, which itself, is a valid strategy within certain domains but I've reiterated that it has its own negatives in that nothing is totally discrete in reality, you can't have your own perfect domain without influence of other domains. Eth in this case, or PoS specifically, doesn't and can't exist within its own reality, it's no more a feedback currency than traditional fiat which is exemplified in that the rich tend to get richer, a theme which exists in many other domains, power attracts power, there's no escaping that. Yet there is a universal fairness in that more power for individual benefit means more power that can turn against you, which is a whole other topic. I think you're trying to argue against something more universal and it's pointless because it's so embedded in the universal machine. PoW, PoS, whatever, both require vigilance to acquire and maintain power that are ultimately derived from some form of work in the real world, regardless of method. PoS is old money, it can perpetuate decadence in the real world by relying on what's done while PoW, new money, may exemplify newness and chaos by relying on change or what's to become, both can work as methods of power transactions in crypto just as in the real world.

Silly argument, I spent way too much time talking about this so guess that means I'm silly, no doubt about that.

PoS still encourages using more powerful hardware and faster internet because it equates to more transactions. That said, I've seen people use Pi's as stakers. But you can still test the current draw per transaction much the same as with PoW currencies.

You're assuming that PoS is divorced from competition and innovation. Those who innovate tend to earn capital, be it fiat, or let's say Ethereum here. You're assuming those that have Ethereum didn't innovate in some way up the line to be able to buy their earned share. And if you want more shares for PoS, well, you innovate and earn to buy more shares. Your model only works if you assume a very closed and proprietary economic system.

Are you saying it's not fair in comparison to individuals? Is it any more than individuals pay (see graph) [0]? Because I see so many complaints here about poor businesses and the taxes they do (don't) pay. Don't forget that businesses need people, it's a symbiotic relationship, one isn't more important than the other.

0: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2015/10/31/a-brief-h...

>Nobody with power wants it.

Or is too influenced by big technopoly lobbying dollars.

Terms and conditions which would have a hard time holding up in court without a signature and witness. Maybe things will change in the future since my own bank does this for online agreements as well as a few government agencies but those do have more stringent KYC rules for online verification.

Couldn't the same also be said at the human scale? Workers have to eat, sleep, often put back some money and gain some assets to grow and be more productive for their families and loved ones. Workers may use some of their money for rest and recreation but so do all companies have some degree of frivolity. This meme that gets passed around of corporations "fostering innovation and job creation" is a corporate apologist cop-out.

Probably. But I'm sure it's very short range. You can already theoretically snoop on someone, albeit usually with the resources of a nation state or maybe less, via display RF noise, keyboard noise (both RF and audible), powerline noise, etc. So much of what we do technologically is very RF noisy.

I can already see the repair-ability of electric cars getting as bad as some Apple hardware. Maybe someone should create an open design of a barebones electric car complete with RPi-based ECM or other open hardware/software. Or have a company do all the hard work as in a Pinephone equivalent of electric cars, a market I could see having some viability while leaving others free to tinker and modify to their needs. One configuration for 4wheel offroad truck, one for street car and so on.

Coincidentally, one reason I like to justify OSS is that when we buy things, we typically know how it works or can look under the hood and check things out as with cars but we can't do so with closed source programs. Why should we start to accept that it's ok that manufacturers think we shouldn't know how the things we buy works? The mechanical nature of cars has given them a more open legacy, well disregarding software, sensors and such, and I hope it continues.

>Titanium, on the other hand, is so safe to our bodies that it's used in surgical implants.

So is Teflon used surgically and considered safe but only at biological temperatures and slightly above. Maybe titanium doesn't have such dark secrets as Teflon.

Most food either comes canned or in plastic containers. Even the "fresh" foods will likely have pesticide residue so I guess grow our own garden? Of course that's probably out of the question in urban environments due to many toxic chemicals in the soil so ugh, we're truly excrementing where we sleep aren't we?

I wouldn't go so far as self-righteously telling someone what their purpose in life is. Besides that, if you want to go down that road, being in a support class and being a productive, supporting member of society in other ways is an evolutionarily valid position. Perhaps someone views their life's purpose to support close family, even if they can't have any kids, or their definition of family may be much more abstract and inclusive to a larger community. Perhaps they do what they do for humanity rather than for themselves alone.

I'm going to guess you'd have more software complexity to account for more dynamic conditions, as OP's link alludes to, along with more redundancy in safety. I'm pretty sure most 4 motor drones can function fine with just three blades/motors and possibly two even.

Source: I'm an expert flyer with dozens of seconds flying. I once bought my kid a tiny 2" drone and eventually took over as pilot. Now I didn't take it from him, he just stopped playing with it (What's wrong with kids these days? I would've loved it as a kid) but those little things are so fun to fly.

It seems it would be contradictory for the "Qnuts" to buy bitcoin. Cryptocoins do more to enable and perpetuate a global economy than standard localized currency. If not soon enough, I can see those types finally realizing the beast they catered to, cryptocoins owned by new globalist ruling classes, just so they could stick it to the man and feel good for a moment. Not that I believe globalism is necessarily a good or bad thing, depends on context but it just signifies once again the myopia of many extremist ideologies.

That was done like 40 years ago: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-on-voy...

Olber's Paradox. You're not the only one.

Definitely. There was even a documentary about it on Netflix about how crimelab technicians were pushed for results rather than accuracy. A couple major scandals involved intentional faking of tests and resulting in countless people going to prison and the judicial consequences it caused as well as the friction involved to seek justice. Like, oh no, all these people convicted for life on flimsy grounds is such a burden of our time.

I agree with OP as well with hosting rights so I don't see why not. Otherwise it's a kind of enforced slavery. People shouldn't have to do work for people they refuse to do work for. Force a man to do such a thing and his will for civility can take a dive.

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen? What's political? Even posting your own boobs can be political and some of these "free speech" sites won't even do that, a hypocritical bunch. Some people like different things, many may even be disgusting and potentially illegal? Should I be sued because I won't host such things? Also, if I host a server, where's my freedom to only host what I want and be able to freely delete something on my server if I wish?

Freedom of speech isn't freedom of reach. Just because you can't say something on my server doesn't mean I'm censoring just like you can't say anything you like in my house or to or about my kids lest I be free to kick you out. Where's the freedom to host a sovereign domain without someone telling you that you have to host certain content?

Sounds like the bill's as hypocritical and disastrous as the people wanting to implement it.

Seems they didn't care until it affected them. Reminds me of software devs who control packages. Some don't care about users until it affects their hardware/software conditions personally.

In those cases many would say 'well, do it yourself and be the politician or the dev if you want change'. In social media's case, where's the free market people saying why not just be the change you seek, aka, use another platform or create another platform instead of blaming it on the man keeping you down? Did they stop using those terms because it's not a convenient mantra for their party now? Maybe they should pick themselves up by their bootstraps, stop blaming others and create their own hosting platforms.

At least they have an option. For those censored by politicians and laws, it takes so much more to change a law than it does to create your own http server and speak freely on it.

Dosbox also runs on Xbox One via Retroarch. So in essence the Xbox can be a retro Windows gaming machine as well. PCem also has a very primitive core. If only Dosbox-X had a core we could run Windows on Xbox which is still possible, I think, using Dosbox or PCem.

Regardless of what mitigations Windows has in place, when you run closed source programs, without competent security auditing you never know what it's doing. Once you click run your precious user files are always in jeopardy. Even with GUI isolation, a point of contention in the article, it's trivial with a few bytes of code to implement some other form of keylogging which the user will run without much thought because hey, it's Windows, it's "secure" while having no real idea what the program is doing in the background. To reiterate, any execution of closed programs will result in execution of closed processes.

With the Windows model, you don't check your guests at the door. You can't search all guests so you assume all guests are hostile and with it you're always taxed with playing security theater which can not only be expensive in terms of hardware resources but mental resources as well as losing more control over your own environment. Because you let unaudited people in your home, before long you have to lock down most parts of it, even from yourself. In gaining control you've lost control because you don't control for openness in the first place. For the few binaries I run on Linux I sandbox them in a VM anyway. But different models, different hosts, each has their weaknesses.

I'm not sure I can recommend it. I went from an Antec 900 to a BeQuiet PureBase 500 and although it's a good case for a good price, I'm disappointed in noise and thermals. Turns out, as many reviewers have pointed out and others long realized, you're better off with a more open case with bigger and slower fans than an enclosed one where you have to run your fans at higher rpms to get equivalent thermals. It's actually noisier and has worse thermals than my 13yr old Antec even after configuring for a quieter fan rpm profile. Although the newer DX model seems to have improved a bit in that area of increased airflow which pretty much defeats the noise savings from insulated panels. All in all, it's still quiet enough that it's not distracting, good enough for me.

That view is too teleological, as if there's a "better". I could see both being advantageous, depending on conditions. The "hibernators" would have a caloric or metabolic advantage should there be harsh conditions and little need to go out and face said conditions when finding food would essentially be fruitless. But given modern conditions that's not quite as advantageous now though could be in the future should we have caloric restraints and one's presupposed to "hibernating" the metabolism to some extent.