Looks like the original version is driven by a coil electromagnet which deflects rare earth magnets in the brush head. https://www.powerelectronictips.com/teardown-whats-inside-a-...
36 karma · joined January 28, 2016
- Over half of means-tested welfare (including Medicaid) goes to people under the age of 18, so these costs won't be touched. "In an average month during 2012, 39.2% of children received some type of means-tested benefit, compared with 16.6% of people aged 18 to 64 and 12.6% of people 65 years and older." The median monthly benefit for these groups was $447, $393, and $303 respectively. The only means tested program that isn't dominated by minors is SSI, the vast majority of which goes to the elderly and people 18 to 64 with disabilities who would not re-enter the workforce. [2, p16, 24]
[1] http://rooseveltinstitute.org/modeling-macroeconomic-effects... [2] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
Regardless, taking a picture of a painting doesn't verify that you painted, or even currently own that painting. Adding a timestamp doesn't change that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery...
For this to provide proof of authenticity, I need to be able to visit a jeweler not employed by Everledger, and have them be able to use a rubric to classify my diamond along these 40 features in a way that uniquely describes it in a way no other diamond could be described. I then need to be able to visit a second and a third jeweler and obtain the exact same classification along these 40 features.
When visiting Everledger's site, I can't get any information on the classification process beyond that sentence. The supposed core of the product doesn't even have a white paper.
Diamonds are comparatively easy to classify, as they are supposedly unique in many ways, and don't physically degrade over time. When it comes to tins of milk, I can't think of a secure proof of authenticity process that doesn't involve the consumer verifying the composition of the product with a gas chromatography machine.
If I have to send my diamond to Everledger to verify it, I'm effectively just trusting them. Representing a physical object as a cryptographic hash for security doesn't work if the consumer can't independently verify the hash.
The problem at hand is ensuring that the information that makes it on the chain is correct, or at least that other members of the chain have a way of noticing and repudiating that contribution. Cryptocurrency blockchains accomplish this via proof of work and forking, which is why everyone is so interested in the technology. But the only reason they work is that the proof of work mechanism is literally what keeps the network running, and if the network isn't running, all of the sunk costs miners have made are effectively worthless, so even though the miners don't have a reason to trust each other, all of their economic incentives are aligned. The only reason to fork is if you think some people have defeated the proof of work mechanism, or if they are pushing a different version of the blockchain software, which wouldn't be allowed in any real-world application anyway.
Proof of work uses inherently useless calculations to determine that one isn't flooding the network with transactions, because every transaction with a correct key is just assumed to be correct. What real-world application does that map to? Certainly none of the ones in the article, which is why these companies don't use proof of work, they use permissioned blockchains. But a permissioned blockchain is effectively like a standard write-only database with an audit log that each individual in the production line has a password to, which is trivial to accomplish with existing tech. The only way other actors can verify if their peers' inputs to the system are correct is if they verify the physical results, and now we're right back where we started, where you can't trust the system more than you trust any one individual, but now with a db that's at least an order of magnitude slower than any competitive option.
If you create a cryptotoken that has a real business purpose and sell it with the expectation that it will be redeemable for that purpose (basically selling gift cards for a service that doesn't exist yet), and a secondary market forms that appears to believe that the tokens are stock and trades them accordingly, are you guilty of securities fraud? What if you never actually develop that service, would that impact your case? If so, how do you distinguish between something that was a ponzi from the start and a mismanaged project that failed to deliver?
Usually achieved by a stamina system (You can play up to 5 levels in 30 minutes, or play another immediately by paying), balancing play so playing without "Premium" items feels sluggish and uncompetitive (but not so sluggish that the game is unfun), and having a lot of gambling style elements to overcome the first two (No gems? You can spin the prize wheel once a day! Also, you logged in 3 days in a row! Have some gems!)
"In prosecuting money laundering offenses, the US Department of Justice takes the position that jurisdiction exists over a financial transaction if the laundering is completed by a US citizen anywhere in the world, or by a foreign national or non-US corporation if the criminal conduct occurs in part in the United States—even if the foreign individual or company never themselves took an action in the United States, or intended for an act to occur there... US enforcement authorities increasingly operate on the assumption (unless convinced otherwise) that they have jurisdiction for such offenses whenever a suspect transaction is denominated in US dollars. http://www.whitecase.com/publications/insight/how-us-laws-ca...
https://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/577b946b-8ad0-4...
This guy did some napkin calculations which show this kind of energy generation can barely keep up with the energy needs of a smart watch, let alone any kind of phone.