The question will be, then: will it still be drivable? It will probably need new tyres and I don't think the battery will like a multi-decade deep discharge, but apart from that? Will be interesting, for sure.
You always have to ask yourself: if I cannot keep this to myself and feel this overwhelming desire to share it with just a few friends, are those friends more likely or less likely than me to keep it to themselves? Realistically, the answer is always "less likely", no matter how much you trust them. It's just basic maths, really.
The feed didn't drop out: you could still see it in the background on one of the monitors on the right of the screen while they were pretending they didn't know. The guy's facial expressions were pretty obvious too, in hindsight.
It crashed into the water, not into the barge. It's designed to do that: the final landing burn normally includes a sidestep towards the ship.
It did cause some damage to two of the barge's engines, due to the proximity of the crash.
If you look at the facial expressions during the "we just got confirmation... no, scratch that" part, you can see they knew perfectly well what happened. And in the background, you can actually see the uninterrupted feed of OCISLY on one of the monitors.
And then they went "we just got confirmation..." with a slightly sad face and then "no, wait, scratch that" and in the next few seconds you could just see in the guy's eyes that he knew perfectly well that the booster had crashed into the ocean but he was not allowed to say it. He even made an awkward smile when the woman next to him said "people are cheering...?", pretending they still didn't know.
Too bad, because it really wasn't such a big deal, it was only a block 3 booster, they weren't going to reuse it (or the others) anyway. I'm pretty sure it was someone other than Elon who told them to pretend they didn't know, and Elon himself would just have told everyone that the booster hadn't made it.
Also, this shows the booster's failure mode worked: when the two engines failed to ignite, it did not crash into the ship. Its trajectory is designed for that: when all engines do work, the rocket executes a sidestep to land on the ship. If the engines fail, the sidestep simply does not occur.
Turn on "slip start" in the Tesla. You will be amazed how much torque control it has. No handbrake turns (afaik), but you can certainly spin out the back end, do donuts, etc.
Of course, if you equate "fun" to "difficult to master", then yes, Teslas are no fun at all.
Just put them into a savings account? Even a 1% rate will give you a tidy 23 million a year.
Also, on the exchanges, buy every coin that's offered for less than 0.99 and sell (creating new coins as necessary) when people want to buy for more than 1.01. Quite easy to peg the coins to the dollar that way, and profit is guaranteed.
I really don't understand how they could screw this up. Unless through greed, of course. Nah, that wouldn't happen, would it?
That just boggles the mind. A temporary password that works for all accounts? And then if, out of sheer disbelief, you check whether you can log into someone else's account like that, they throw you in jail for hacking?
Yep, I'm familiar with all of that: - Ordering fractions diagonally to connect them to naturals - Assuming an ordered list of all the reals, taking the first digit + 1 behind the decimal point of the "first" real, the second digit + 1 of the "second" real, etc. yields a real that is not in the list
But it's still weird that, if there are so many "more" reals, you cannot find two reals without a rational in between. When dealing with infinities, it's really easy to take a wrong turn because assumptions valid for finite sets no longer hold for infinite sets.
And since the copyrights have expired, you can download the text for free by googling the title with "pdf" behind it.
This was indeed the first book I read that actually made me understand relativity. All the others, while trying to simplify things, ended up oversimplifying so even a twelve year old (which I was when I started reading about it) could find the contradictions.
For example, from one of the "wrong" books: a spaceship is passed by a laser beam, we measure the speed of the light beam as c relative to us, so it's less than c relative to the spacecraft, but inside the ship they do measure c relative to themselves, therefore time is passing more slowly for them. To which my 12 year old brain immediately reacted with "what if they look at a different laser beam that's going the other way?"
Einstein explained things properly but in a way I could still understand. All the pieces came together perfectly and I finally understood. And I wondered why nobody else could explain it that way.
A paradox I like even more, is the one with two 100 meter trains passing each other on an 80 m section of track by going at 0.6c. A bystander sees the two trains pass each other while they are only 80 m long due to Lorentz contraction. On the train, your own train is 100 m, the section of double track is 64 m, but fortunately the other train is even shorter (45.8 m) and they pass each other first on one side and then the other.
The reason I like it better than the ladder paradox is that it really drives home the point that the contraction is real. With the ladder, people tend to say that the ladder is never really in the barn, it's just a result of the clocks being off (especially since that's how you explained it can be in the barn and not really in the barn depending on who's looking and whether or not the clocks say the same thing). With the train, you can point out that even though the points of view explain the result differently, the trains actually do end up passing each other no matter how you look at them, while they really ought to be too long.
No, it's "degrees Celsius", "degrees Fahrenheit" and "Kelvin". If you look at the symbols, you'll see a little superscript circle in front of C and F but not in front of K. The degrees symbol is part of the unit, it's not "degrees times Celsius/Fahrenheit", there's no relation to angles.
(I wish Slashdot could display a simple "degrees" character so I wouldn't have to resort to descriptions like "little superscript circle", but who am I kidding, of course it cannot, in 2018...)
Why would it need a 200+ fold size of the blockchain? If the problem is the reversibility of the private->public key calculation, several quantum-hard alternatives exist that are equivalent in usage, just calculated differently. So you still just need a public key in the block chain and a private key in the wallet, exactly like before.
As for the proof of work, that can really be anything and you just have to store the verifiable result of that calculation.
So where would the 200 fold size increase come from?
Slashdot Mirror
The question will be, then: will it still be drivable? It will probably need new tyres and I don't think the battery will like a multi-decade deep discharge, but apart from that? Will be interesting, for sure.
You always have to ask yourself: if I cannot keep this to myself and feel this overwhelming desire to share it with just a few friends, are those friends more likely or less likely than me to keep it to themselves? Realistically, the answer is always "less likely", no matter how much you trust them. It's just basic maths, really.
Got the same one. Failed it, so I guess I haven't watched enough porn yet.
Or maybe they were pictures of detectives? Hmmm, I guess they got me fair and square, then...
You could actually see the feed continue on one of the monitors in the background, on the right. They were pretending.
The feed didn't drop out: you could still see it in the background on one of the monitors on the right of the screen while they were pretending they didn't know. The guy's facial expressions were pretty obvious too, in hindsight.
It crashed into the water, not into the barge. It's designed to do that: the final landing burn normally includes a sidestep towards the ship.
It did cause some damage to two of the barge's engines, due to the proximity of the crash.
If you look at the facial expressions during the "we just got confirmation... no, scratch that" part, you can see they knew perfectly well what happened. And in the background, you can actually see the uninterrupted feed of OCISLY on one of the monitors.
And then they went "we just got confirmation..." with a slightly sad face and then "no, wait, scratch that" and in the next few seconds you could just see in the guy's eyes that he knew perfectly well that the booster had crashed into the ocean but he was not allowed to say it. He even made an awkward smile when the woman next to him said "people are cheering...?", pretending they still didn't know.
Too bad, because it really wasn't such a big deal, it was only a block 3 booster, they weren't going to reuse it (or the others) anyway. I'm pretty sure it was someone other than Elon who told them to pretend they didn't know, and Elon himself would just have told everyone that the booster hadn't made it.
Also, this shows the booster's failure mode worked: when the two engines failed to ignite, it did not crash into the ship. Its trajectory is designed for that: when all engines do work, the rocket executes a sidestep to land on the ship. If the engines fail, the sidestep simply does not occur.
Yes they are.
Here in Europe, too: I actually know someone who tried to mortgage his home to buy bitcoin, but was fortunately talked out of it by the bank employee.
O, and then there's the famous bitcoin family who sold everything they own to buy bitcoin. They are living at a camp site.
All of those were in december, of course, right before the peak...
And it only opens in MS Word.
Turn on "slip start" in the Tesla. You will be amazed how much torque control it has. No handbrake turns (afaik), but you can certainly spin out the back end, do donuts, etc.
Of course, if you equate "fun" to "difficult to master", then yes, Teslas are no fun at all.
Just put them into a savings account? Even a 1% rate will give you a tidy 23 million a year.
Also, on the exchanges, buy every coin that's offered for less than 0.99 and sell (creating new coins as necessary) when people want to buy for more than 1.01. Quite easy to peg the coins to the dollar that way, and profit is guaranteed.
I really don't understand how they could screw this up. Unless through greed, of course. Nah, that wouldn't happen, would it?
Just turn it 90 degrees then.
That just boggles the mind. A temporary password that works for all accounts? And then if, out of sheer disbelief, you check whether you can log into someone else's account like that, they throw you in jail for hacking?
Yep, I'm familiar with all of that:
- Ordering fractions diagonally to connect them to naturals
- Assuming an ordered list of all the reals, taking the first digit + 1 behind the decimal point of the "first" real, the second digit + 1 of the "second" real, etc. yields a real that is not in the list
But it's still weird that, if there are so many "more" reals, you cannot find two reals without a rational in between. When dealing with infinities, it's really easy to take a wrong turn because assumptions valid for finite sets no longer hold for infinite sets.
But there is a rational number between every two irrational numbers! Words like "numerous" are tricky that way...
I wish someone would just develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases.
Obligatory xkcd.
And since the copyrights have expired, you can download the text for free by googling the title with "pdf" behind it.
This was indeed the first book I read that actually made me understand relativity. All the others, while trying to simplify things, ended up oversimplifying so even a twelve year old (which I was when I started reading about it) could find the contradictions.
For example, from one of the "wrong" books: a spaceship is passed by a laser beam, we measure the speed of the light beam as c relative to us, so it's less than c relative to the spacecraft, but inside the ship they do measure c relative to themselves, therefore time is passing more slowly for them. To which my 12 year old brain immediately reacted with "what if they look at a different laser beam that's going the other way?"
Einstein explained things properly but in a way I could still understand. All the pieces came together perfectly and I finally understood. And I wondered why nobody else could explain it that way.
It's only a matter of time before someone invents a pigeon coin based on RFC 1149
A paradox I like even more, is the one with two 100 meter trains passing each other on an 80 m section of track by going at 0.6c. A bystander sees the two trains pass each other while they are only 80 m long due to Lorentz contraction. On the train, your own train is 100 m, the section of double track is 64 m, but fortunately the other train is even shorter (45.8 m) and they pass each other first on one side and then the other.
The reason I like it better than the ladder paradox is that it really drives home the point that the contraction is real. With the ladder, people tend to say that the ladder is never really in the barn, it's just a result of the clocks being off (especially since that's how you explained it can be in the barn and not really in the barn depending on who's looking and whether or not the clocks say the same thing). With the train, you can point out that even though the points of view explain the result differently, the trains actually do end up passing each other no matter how you look at them, while they really ought to be too long.
But which boss is it? The Wither or the Ender Dragon?
Looks like BofA searched the patent database for "on a computer", replaced with "on a blockchain", and refiled the patents.
And don't worry about dead cat bounces, because in crypto they are Schrödinger's cats!
No, it's "degrees Celsius", "degrees Fahrenheit" and "Kelvin". If you look at the symbols, you'll see a little superscript circle in front of C and F but not in front of K. The degrees symbol is part of the unit, it's not "degrees times Celsius/Fahrenheit", there's no relation to angles.
(I wish Slashdot could display a simple "degrees" character so I wouldn't have to resort to descriptions like "little superscript circle", but who am I kidding, of course it cannot, in 2018...)
Why would it need a 200+ fold size of the blockchain? If the problem is the reversibility of the private->public key calculation, several quantum-hard alternatives exist that are equivalent in usage, just calculated differently. So you still just need a public key in the block chain and a private key in the wallet, exactly like before.
As for the proof of work, that can really be anything and you just have to store the verifiable result of that calculation.
So where would the 200 fold size increase come from?