pffft8888

Later on, I tried emailing him as he had invited me to do so about my hypothesis that the neurons that produce the perception of time start firing slower as we age so time seems to be moving faster (a lower-resolution sampling of time, like a skipping stone arcoss a pond rather than through it moving much faster) He never replied.

Then I emailed him again to congratualte him on his receiving the Turing Award, a year later, and once again no reply. I felt even more awkward for emailing him twice.

Reading this complaint from his co-founder, I surmise that Ed may not be very good at maintaining relations. A bit disturbing to hear that he omitted his co-founder from being mentioned.

Something not adding up here. Money movement (if you touch fiat on the way in or out) is highly regulated, and you would put Western Union and MoneyGram out of business if it wasn't. Moneygram already uses USDC, but it's not that simple.

Secondly you need AML and other compliance.

You'll have fuedal lords (aka billionaires) in control of the digital money supply. How is that not a coup?

Speaking of that, I might as well provide some supprting evidence from a different part of the tech industry. Most people don't know that right now Blackrock and Coinbase are attempting a coup on the US dollar by seeking access to central bank liability for their stable coin? The Coinbase CEO even said it out loud that this year his stable coin will become the de facto central bank digital currency. I suspect that they have indirectly bribed someone at the Fed (how else does that work? esp since the Fed chairmen has come out strongly against stablecoins) and are basically trying to get the ability to get Fed loans at the Fed rate and loan out at the commercial bank rate without being a bank and by using a coin which they can mint themselves, so all the profits from interest create more reserves and the cycle keeps going. It is literally insane. The threat from Google and Microsoft to society pales in comparison. I may not have my understanding 100% correct but all banks are up in arms about it and the average person on HN has no clue this is happening. Just Google Blackrock, USDC and the Fed. The banks are calling it a backdoor CBDC.

?

I understand from the other comment in this thread that Google is OK with building an OS within the browser and minimizing the role of the OS, but I do not think Quic is a great example unless and until you consider, as the other commenter did, that it could work without UDP and they used UDP only because the routers and other network hardware required it. So, I understand overall, just knit picking on this particular form of the argument.

Quic still relies on UDP, just like many other non-TCP protocols that are built by vendors for all sorts of applications.

I also argue that there is no net advantage to Apple's secrecy. If they had openly talked about the M1 (Apple Silicon) when they were working on it they would have just had more mindshare and the whole Apple ecosystem could have been preparing for it. By staying silent until they released it, it bought them nothing other than the element of surprise, which is like when little children don't want you to see what they're working on, in case you would take over their creative process, and instead want to surprise you with their brilliance.

I very much doubt that secrecy in the absence of insecurity has any value.

Go past the abstract (which is worded politically) and read the actual research then tell me why we should not be worried that the first deployed version of the mRNA code may have an error in it, like all code that's released in a rush. LOL.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8310186/