2,452 karma · joined April 11, 2013
But maybe it just stays orbiting at about the same velocity in the same orbit, so it's not really a big issue for other spacecraft in GEO?
Here's a Wikipedia page with some ideas about it (look for "Higher Altitudes") -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
Intelsat 29e, way back in 2019, but that's interesting. Some kind of onboard issue?
[0] https://www.intelsat.com/newsroom/intelsat-29e-service-outag...
Hit by something, or an internal problem?
Slide 7 shows teaching, and it looks interesting, but it does not show learning I think.
Slide 10 shows a little learning, and it looks less interesting than slide 7
Good luck (not trying to discourage, but I hope this helps!)
I'm not doubting the OP. But why is ByteDance doing this? What does that company get out of scraping YouTube?
The writers, editors and other business partners who built their reputation by contributing to Forbes previous good reputation are probably very not OK with it
That relationship can work in the opposite way sometimes. John McAfee seemed to be getting a gleeful kick out of embarrassing the security company that had invested in the right to use his name.
Usually because he was doing zany and sketchy and potentially criminal, while expertly courting media attention. But he also used that power for good sometimes by criticizing their bad products.
And seems like they learned nothing from this terrible experience, because they've also released World of Goo 2 DRM-free: https://worldofgoo2.com/
It's the most important word on their page, and it's obvious that some people, even technically-minded folks, don't understand the jargon.
But could be they got extra engagement from readers who are interested in baking and breakfast recipes?
Decentralization is either a very attractive feature or a dangerous threat. It depends on who you ask and what they have at stake.
I think decentralization is a very attractive feature. But there are many problems with various blockchain-type technologies currently. These problems include high energy costs, slow and limited transaction rates, lack of privacy of transactions, and being too complicated for any average person to use safely.
Not all blockchain technologies have all of these problems. There are many mitigations for these problems. Some people say that some of these issues (like irreversible transactions) are features, not problems.
One way of seeing it is that the current technology is just a a low-level base layer, and better things will be built on top of it.
But, currently I'm not aware of any widely-accepted cryptocurrency or blockchain tech which avoids all of these problems yet.
Edit: and isn't good old physical cash still a reasonable solution in Spain?
The hacks I was talking about were just all the numerous attacks on exchanges and users that have involved BTC or ETH getting stolen.
It's sort of tedious discussing this kind of thing on HN because there will always be some guy who jumps in and says 'Well, ACTUALLY, what about SBF and FTX!!" even though I'm not talking about that. So, I just wanted to admit there had been many other financial losses, to try to avoid all those clever people replying and telling me about MtGox or Tether or something like that, as if I didn't already know about it. Kind of like that other guy who replied to my comment with something mostly irrelevant that he wanted to spout.
I didn't have time to write that all out in such pedantically specific detail - almost nobody is reading this. So, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding that I created. I was not being sneaky. You know: Sometimes, people just don't have time to explain everything in detail.
You seem like someone who is able to see this side of the argument, so thank you again for your comments.
Yes, I do see some differences. It's true that the situations were not identical. Thanks for your interesting reply.
One important difference is that the amount of money lost in the DAO was MUCH larger than the amount lost by the Bitcoin bug (the Bitcoin bug simply lost the total value of all valid Bitcoins, which I guess was only about $1m at that time in 2010, with few individuals holding substantial amounts). This meant that not much money was at stake and fewer people were affected, so the roll back was less contentious.
:
But there's a VERY important similarity between the two events: They were both existential threats to the respective currency.
That existential threat to Bitcoin was obvious. As you have just said, Bitcoin would have died if they did not quickly invalidate the 'faked' Bitcoins, because the quantity completely dwarfed the true Bitcoin money supply. So it was clearly the right thing to do.
The existential threat of the DAO bug to Ethereum was less clear. There was also more time to decide what to do, because the stolen funds had not yet been released from the smart contract, (and I recall the money could be stalled in the contract almost indefinitely by white hat hackers iteratively exploiting the same bug that had created the problem.)
But the consensus at the time, very early in Ethereum's life, was that Ethereum might die if 15% of the entire currency was in a state of limbo, or in the hands of a malicious hacker. This was compounded by the reputational damage and loss of confidence caused by such a huge disaster that directly impacted thousands of the most active Ethereum users, not just a few Ethereum developers.
:
I pointed out that some Ethereum developers lost substantial amounts in the DAO, so I can accept that personal financial loss probably also biased the decisions of some of them to approve a roll back.
But I personally don't believe that personal loss suffered by some Ethereum developers was a very significant factor in the decision to do a roll back of the DAO event. To explain my reasoning: That is why I mentioned the Parity bug.
The Parity bug was an even larger loss in financial terms, but it only affected a very small number of people, who mostly were Ethereum developers. The lost money was destroyed, not stolen. It did not affect the wider community, so it was not seen as an existential threat to Ethereum. So there was no question of a roll back.
:
Possibly the quite acrimonious argument over the DAO fix, which was bad enough to cause a semi-viable hard fork (creating the ETC currency), was an additional factor discouraging the developers and community from accepting a roll back to fix the Parity bug and later incidents.
Edit: Like you've mentioned, another difference is that the Bitcoin issue was a bug in Bitcoin itself. The Ethereum issues were coding bugs in smart contracts. I'm just making an observation about that, not claiming that one currency is better than the other.
I quoted the single issue that I was disputing. I wrote as clearly as possible to only refute one point, about the implication that Bitcoin had never done a roll back.
If you want to talk about all those other things, then make a separate thread or post,. Please don't use my comment as a vehicle for your arguments, because it's confusing and few people will understand what you're talking about.
Bitcoin has also done this.
You're referring to the $50m DAO smart contract bug (or "hack") early in 2016, when Ethereum had been running for about a year. The Ethereum blockchain was swiftly rolled back. This was achieved by the majority of Ethereum developers agreeing to create an update to Ethereum software that reversed the hackers transactions specifically, and the great majority of users and miners agreeing to use that updated software. The people behind the DAO were closely connected to the Ethereum developers. Some of them were Ethereum developers. Some of the people who lost money in the DAO were Ethereum developers.
What you're unaware of apparently, is that when Bitcoin had been running for about a year, in 2010, a bug allowed someone to create 184 billion Bitcoins. This effectively made everybody's Bitcoins worthless (or even more worthless!). This event was ALSO swiftly rolled back, just like the Ethereum DAO event, by the same consensus process that I described above.
"Core developers Gavin Andresen and Satoshi Nakamoto were on the case, and the 184 billion BTC transaction was purged from block 74638."
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-history-part-10-the-184-bil...
Since then, there have been various incidents involving Ethereum and Bitcoin and hacks or smart contract bugs that caused losses of millions or billions. But neither currency has ever done a roll back of this nature again.
For instance. A year or so after Ethereum's DAO debacle, there was another similar event, the Parity bug, which accidentally locked $230m in a smart contract, permanently. The people operating Parity were closely connected to the Ethereum developers, some of them were Ethereum developers. But this time, although the victims pleaded for a roll back, it was never seriously considered.
https://news.bitcoin.com/parity-calls-for-ethereum-hard-fork...
They should explain why though
But between 100,000 to 250,000 died, Japanese and American, in the battle of Okinawa in 1945, the 3 month US invasion of Okinawa, before the atomic bombs were used. That was the first and only US attempt to invade the main Japanese islands, and it was a tragic and unnecessary loss of life.
About 80,000 died in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.
But Japan should have surrendered long before any of the atom bombs fell. They had obviously lost. If Japan's leadership could not take that obvious step, then there was no easy solution.
But you could appreciate it as a skilled live stunt act. Because it is genuinely dangerous. The moves must have been rehearsed, but the performers do get seriously hurt if they don't execute the act precisely in front of the audience
The Wall Street Journal "Cantor Fitzgerald helps manage $39 billion Treasury portfolio that makes up lion’s share of stablecoin’s reserves"
https://archive.md/HL307 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-street-firm-oversees-billi...)
(I am NOT endorsing that company, Tether / Bitfinex, or suggesting that anybody invests in it in any way. Just agreeing that if you have a lot of money, then you might profit from it)
This review is a little old but gets into some detail and mentions most of the common brandnames under which the tester can be found online
https://usbchargingblog.wordpress.com/2021/01/07/shizuku-avh...
Warning: This tester has the capability to damage connected devices, by the user deliberately ignoring and over-riding the device's maximum power request, but only if it's used very carelessly
The latest on #Zelle on Twitter is quite the firestorm of outrage right now, too: https://twitter.com/hashtag/Zelle?f=live
There are also some positive signs that people are getting their problems resolved: https://downdetector.com/status/zelle/
You really should read more about him to see how this incident might be more plausible in the context of such an unusual individual's unique and non-mainstream lifestyle
We don't know his motives, or if the clever 'hack' was added before or after his disagreement with the marketing people.
But it sounds like more than a coincidence
I thought the original story implied that the primary purpose of the alleged hack was to make the program (a blackjack game) difficult for anyone else to understand and edit, because Mel himself had refused to alter the program to allow the company's staff to cheat?
(edit: blackjack, not backgammon, thank you cassiepaper)
Probably this wouldn't be enough if every renter was a heavy EV user, but it could be good for a few years, and also would be useful for power outages and to take advantage of off-peak rates in future
Metering and payment would be an issue, but it should be possible to find a solution for that
I searched for a few minutes, but the results seem to be about using MAME to control an original Vectrex vector display, (such as: https://trmm.net/Vectrex/), not emulation of Vectrex on an LCD display,
A news story about the incident: https://web.archive.org/web/20120415222940/http://maritimeac...
Publishing on those sites requires minimal effort. As the userbase grows, those sites attract more and more low-quality creators. Although there are many excellent writers on Medium, there is naturally also an increasing proportion of spam.
This flood of low effort content harms the perception of the entire site, so today when we see a Medium.com link perhaps we hesitate to click.
'The Atlantic's articles shatter the myth of respected media.'
You're saying this as if networking and convincing acquaintances to offer financial assistance is cheating, rather than a normal part of starting up a company
Anyway, how about SpaceX? I suppose that's a similar story? It's true that SpaceX also was really on the verge of failure, and it survived because of government subsidies and private loans
But there does seem to be a rare pattern of repeated success here. Elon started with ZipX ($22m in 4 years), then X.com/Paypal ($175m in 2 years), then Tesla and SpaceX.
He's repeatedly creating valued companies, and in the SpaceX case, real innovation. Is this 100% luck, is it all a scam? I find that difficult to believe.