... but mining should continue to stay profitable as long as people are interested in using coin.
Careful there. In the long run, what you say is correct, as a matter of average behavior. But there is nothing intrinsic about the facts of mining that say the individual miners cannot be taking losses. At the margins, the mining must make more money than the electricity bill, or rigs will be shut down (or swapped to other crypto ecosystems), and miners can refuse transactions that do not provide bounties, to make sure they at least break even. But the hardware was not free, so an individual miner could go bankrupt, while making breadcrumbs mining.
Cryptocurrencies will need to survive vicious competition from other cryptocurrencies, to name one critical factor relevant to their individual survival. There are a number of reasons to suspect that Bitcoin specifically lacks the technical merit for this new phase of the game.
I am a strong believer that blockchain technology has a future. Cryptocurrencies as we know them are one simple possible use case for a blockchain technology. Whether passing around ethereal pure fiat "money" around is a really important use case is unproven.
I shook hands with 0 people, of course. That is implied in the provided solution. Only I do not bother to ask myself so it does not seem relevant. But it is.
And that is probably the easier way to look at it. The provided solution is 8-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 4-0(me).
I am saying that this is also legal: 4-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 8-0(me). I do not ask me, of course, thus preserving "each gave a different answer".
It constructs a possible answer. But it asserts that 8 MUST be paired with 0. That is forgetting that my wife is a special case that breaks that logic.
8-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 4-me is indeed a legal answer (the one provided). So is 4-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 8-me.
Your point is mostly correct, but Feynman's reasoning was driven by an underlying scientific truth: temperature is not additive. Trying to add temperatures is actually mis-teaching about science.
Let me give you an example:
The average family income in America is $50,000. For a Dutch family it is $42,000. For a Chinese family it is $9000. What is the total income? (Answer: $101,000)
And it would be one thing to see such silliness in a math textbook, but would it be acceptable in an economics textbook?
Corollary: Organizations that can successfully recruit talented woman enjoy a tremendous competitive advantage, as they have twice the talent pool to recruit from for future positions.
Furthermore, what you suggest is not exactly new. It is just another shade of lipstick on top of the passe shades of lipstick on the same old pig. There is always a lame excuse why this is not quite the right time to do the right thing, that the old wrong thing is so superior because it is comfortable (to certain men).
Typical working adults must drive. On average they are directly or indirectly spending a few thousand per year on a new vehicle. In a rural area that cost will probably exceed 10% of gross wages. So imagine 6-10 men chatting over brunch in a local restaurant, to discuss business and politics. These men represent families whose businesses touch over 10% of the gross wages of the entire county. Guess what kind of effect they have on state politics? Rural politicians are outright terrified of these little social circles, and it is nearly impossible for them to get elected without getting the nod. The state gov'ts reflect this reality.
There is a fig leaf of an argument that a car is such a significant purchase that there should have some minimal in state presence for service/support for the customer.
"Expect" would be too strong a word. But being completely inflexible as a voter has consequences. Obama tacked foreign policy into a very slightly less militaristic direction and was relentlessly hounded by the GOP for "weakness". The GOP primary was wall-to-wall testosterone and militarism. The Pentagon is pushing for indefinite deployments into the Levant for our eternal war against ISIS/alQaeda, and Trump seems to be agreeing. What is there to be surprised about? I think it is fair to guess that Clinton would have been reluctant to commit troops in that manner, even she is still uncomfortably militaristic. The very reason this situation is so bad is that GOP leaders believe their core voters are too emotionally weak to cross over and vote for a Dem, even when their loved ones lives are literally on the line.
Cryptocurrencies will exercise Gresham's law ("bad money drives out good") in interesting new ways. Bitcoin specifically is going to get hammered from all sides -- beaten up by both bad and good currencies that are technically more convenient and/or superior.
The main meaningful theme is a view of fascism as an accepted norm. The details are enjoyable, but quite forgettable. It was original at its time, so worthy of some accolades, but later authors deal with similar subjects better.
Not quite. Net neutrality says nothing about overall better service at a premium price. What it is about is the ISPs restricting your traffic that you already paid to have access to, based on schemes that are probably hidden and/or indecipherable to the consumer who has paid the bill.
Theoretical example with concrete details: Suppose you had Netflix, and you suddenly noticed it was much slower, but other some other quick technical checks you perform show your network speed is okay. You call up your ISP and customer service says it is probably a problem at Netflix's side -- call them up. You file a complaint with Netflix. But what really happened is the ISP is in negotiation with Netflix for an added payment to "ensure" good consumer experience. To make their point, they reconfigured their network to slow down all Netflix traffic. Does that sound hunky dory to you?
Such arguments work because the short term benefits to law enforcement are likely real enough, while the short term risk of a breach are not so terrible. It is in the long term that a pile of magic keys to everything looks like a horrible idea. Law enforcement as a group are not particularly better at guarding their secrets than anyone else, especially when a professional criminal outfit banked by a nation state is involved in the game. A big breach could be a disaster that would take years to fix, with real negative effects on the economy and national security.
With CCGs, generally speaking, the designers are generally not purposefully giving you crap. Every rare was intended to be good, though it is impossible for every card to be good for every player.
Early MtG did not quite adhere to that principle, but the designers moved in that direction quickly, because pissing customers off was never part of the plan. Once it became clear that obfuscation for the sake of suspense would only annoy the most dedicated players, there was no point in hiding the odds.
The modern in game purchases are most certainly going to tweak the odds on the fly based on past behavior, where the app will have programmed strategies to milk the player for more purchases, and tweak the odds on the fly. That is a crazy thing for adult to subject himself to, but it is scary in the hands of a child whose parent made the error of not setting parental controls stringently enough. It is fair to want to stop that.
Which is why the ad is a winner. It appeals to duo-income parents who want to believe that the right consumer goods will unlock their children's supery dupery potential. If vicarious aspirations do not get them to reach for the wallet, then guilt over parental neglect surely will. But it is nice to start with the honey themes and let the darker subtext gnaw at their underlying anxieties.
I agree that we should be skeptical about computer spending in schools. My own child is homeschooled and has carefully limited access to media and computers. And when my wife is asked about how he will learn those allegedly important "computer skills" he is missing out on, her answer is that most of the critical computer infrastructure we rely on was built by a generation of engineers that (mostly) never touched a computer until they were 18.
Educational expenditure levels, in general, are complex, confounded by important social changes over the decades. A century ago a woman with literally genius level brains would happily accept a job as a teacher for the pay near that of a unskilled male laborer. Today, such a woman can choose between careers offering six figures. Unless we legislate to destroy the free market system, it was inevitable that school costs would rise much faster than inflation.
Actually, no, they do not have to show the intention to insult. They just have to show that a reasonable person would find something insulting, in a manner that appears to be in violation of company policy. Google is allowed to discharge people for "mistakes".
And that is why Damore is going to get completely crushed. Because starting off with a rambling "you all live in an ideological echo chamber" is a fluffy kind of ad hominem attack. Reasonable people are allowed to be informed by his overt attitude when interpreting his later arguments.
That is a different argument, and it will get its day in court. Apparently. But keep in mind that it is all or nothing for Damore. If Damore said, say, 100 things and the judge agrees that 99 are not offensive to reasonable people, Google's lawyers can still zero in on the one sloppy argument, shove it down his throat, and they win.
I was arguing against suggestions along the lines that facts are facts and can never be offensive. So, if Damore's position actually makes such solid sense, then why do so many defenders have to put forth such an obviously wrong argument, hmmm?
For the record, my personal opinion is that some of Damore's arguments were challenging and uncomfortable and useful, and it is very unfortunate for everyone, especially Damore, that he did not narrow the scope of his document to a cleaner and more focused form. Because he will get hammered for every little bit of sloppiness.
That is, instead of trying to reject more male candidates...
Really now, isn't that obviously a Male Victimhood Fantasy that is unlikely to apply here?
Companies like Google are always hungry for excellent talent and they are not rejecting any such candidate due to gonads.
It is true that Google is making more effort to get target minorities to apply and go through the full interview process. But the intention still appears to be to not hire unqualified candidates. (Of course, intentions and implementation do not always jibe.)
Whether that is exactly fair and whether more lesser candidates are accidentally hired as a result (some mistakes always happen) is a reasonable thing to wonder.
Damore does not wonder so much as emphatically state that a lot of poor quality female engineers are being hired as a result of these policies. His reasoning and evidence happen to be conspicuously thin here. And that is a problem for Damore, because reasonable people will judge his other arguments in the light of this weak argument.
Slashdot Mirror
... but mining should continue to stay profitable as long as people are interested in using coin.
Careful there. In the long run, what you say is correct, as a matter of average behavior. But there is nothing intrinsic about the facts of mining that say the individual miners cannot be taking losses. At the margins, the mining must make more money than the electricity bill, or rigs will be shut down (or swapped to other crypto ecosystems), and miners can refuse transactions that do not provide bounties, to make sure they at least break even. But the hardware was not free, so an individual miner could go bankrupt, while making breadcrumbs mining.
Cryptocurrencies will need to survive vicious competition from other cryptocurrencies, to name one critical factor relevant to their individual survival. There are a number of reasons to suspect that Bitcoin specifically lacks the technical merit for this new phase of the game.
I am a strong believer that blockchain technology has a future. Cryptocurrencies as we know them are one simple possible use case for a blockchain technology. Whether passing around ethereal pure fiat "money" around is a really important use case is unproven.
I will have to think about this more. I am not satisfied with the solution.
How about this one: 8-0, 4-1, 6-2, 5-3, 7-0(me).
Hmmm...now I am seeing your objection. Let me consider.
I shook hands with 0 people, of course. That is implied in the provided solution. Only I do not bother to ask myself so it does not seem relevant. But it is.
And that is probably the easier way to look at it. The provided solution is 8-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 4-0(me).
I am saying that this is also legal: 4-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 8-0(me). I do not ask me, of course, thus preserving "each gave a different answer".
It constructs a possible answer. But it asserts that 8 MUST be paired with 0. That is forgetting that my wife is a special case that breaks that logic. 8-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 4-me is indeed a legal answer (the one provided). So is 4-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 8-me.
Your point is mostly correct, but Feynman's reasoning was driven by an underlying scientific truth: temperature is not additive. Trying to add temperatures is actually mis-teaching about science.
Let me give you an example:
The average family income in America is $50,000. For a Dutch family it is $42,000. For a Chinese family it is $9000. What is the total income? (Answer: $101,000)
And it would be one thing to see such silliness in a math textbook, but would it be acceptable in an economics textbook?
Except the solution provided is incorrect. It SEEMS correct, but it is not.
Corollary: Organizations that can successfully recruit talented woman enjoy a tremendous competitive advantage, as they have twice the talent pool to recruit from for future positions.
Furthermore, what you suggest is not exactly new. It is just another shade of lipstick on top of the passe shades of lipstick on the same old pig. There is always a lame excuse why this is not quite the right time to do the right thing, that the old wrong thing is so superior because it is comfortable (to certain men).
Greed and power.
Typical working adults must drive. On average they are directly or indirectly spending a few thousand per year on a new vehicle. In a rural area that cost will probably exceed 10% of gross wages. So imagine 6-10 men chatting over brunch in a local restaurant, to discuss business and politics. These men represent families whose businesses touch over 10% of the gross wages of the entire county. Guess what kind of effect they have on state politics? Rural politicians are outright terrified of these little social circles, and it is nearly impossible for them to get elected without getting the nod. The state gov'ts reflect this reality.
There is a fig leaf of an argument that a car is such a significant purchase that there should have some minimal in state presence for service/support for the customer.
"Expect" would be too strong a word. But being completely inflexible as a voter has consequences. Obama tacked foreign policy into a very slightly less militaristic direction and was relentlessly hounded by the GOP for "weakness". The GOP primary was wall-to-wall testosterone and militarism. The Pentagon is pushing for indefinite deployments into the Levant for our eternal war against ISIS/alQaeda, and Trump seems to be agreeing. What is there to be surprised about? I think it is fair to guess that Clinton would have been reluctant to commit troops in that manner, even she is still uncomfortably militaristic. The very reason this situation is so bad is that GOP leaders believe their core voters are too emotionally weak to cross over and vote for a Dem, even when their loved ones lives are literally on the line.
Cryptocurrencies will exercise Gresham's law ("bad money drives out good") in interesting new ways. Bitcoin specifically is going to get hammered from all sides -- beaten up by both bad and good currencies that are technically more convenient and/or superior.
Some voters choose to be very easy to manipulate.
I heard your bleating. I am not impressed.
The main meaningful theme is a view of fascism as an accepted norm. The details are enjoyable, but quite forgettable. It was original at its time, so worthy of some accolades, but later authors deal with similar subjects better.
Not quite. Net neutrality says nothing about overall better service at a premium price. What it is about is the ISPs restricting your traffic that you already paid to have access to, based on schemes that are probably hidden and/or indecipherable to the consumer who has paid the bill.
Theoretical example with concrete details: Suppose you had Netflix, and you suddenly noticed it was much slower, but other some other quick technical checks you perform show your network speed is okay. You call up your ISP and customer service says it is probably a problem at Netflix's side -- call them up. You file a complaint with Netflix. But what really happened is the ISP is in negotiation with Netflix for an added payment to "ensure" good consumer experience. To make their point, they reconfigured their network to slow down all Netflix traffic. Does that sound hunky dory to you?
Such arguments work because the short term benefits to law enforcement are likely real enough, while the short term risk of a breach are not so terrible. It is in the long term that a pile of magic keys to everything looks like a horrible idea. Law enforcement as a group are not particularly better at guarding their secrets than anyone else, especially when a professional criminal outfit banked by a nation state is involved in the game. A big breach could be a disaster that would take years to fix, with real negative effects on the economy and national security.
Agreed.
With CCGs, generally speaking, the designers are generally not purposefully giving you crap. Every rare was intended to be good, though it is impossible for every card to be good for every player.
Early MtG did not quite adhere to that principle, but the designers moved in that direction quickly, because pissing customers off was never part of the plan. Once it became clear that obfuscation for the sake of suspense would only annoy the most dedicated players, there was no point in hiding the odds.
The modern in game purchases are most certainly going to tweak the odds on the fly based on past behavior, where the app will have programmed strategies to milk the player for more purchases, and tweak the odds on the fly. That is a crazy thing for adult to subject himself to, but it is scary in the hands of a child whose parent made the error of not setting parental controls stringently enough. It is fair to want to stop that.
Which is why the ad is a winner. It appeals to duo-income parents who want to believe that the right consumer goods will unlock their children's supery dupery potential. If vicarious aspirations do not get them to reach for the wallet, then guilt over parental neglect surely will. But it is nice to start with the honey themes and let the darker subtext gnaw at their underlying anxieties.
I agree that we should be skeptical about computer spending in schools. My own child is homeschooled and has carefully limited access to media and computers. And when my wife is asked about how he will learn those allegedly important "computer skills" he is missing out on, her answer is that most of the critical computer infrastructure we rely on was built by a generation of engineers that (mostly) never touched a computer until they were 18.
Educational expenditure levels, in general, are complex, confounded by important social changes over the decades. A century ago a woman with literally genius level brains would happily accept a job as a teacher for the pay near that of a unskilled male laborer. Today, such a woman can choose between careers offering six figures. Unless we legislate to destroy the free market system, it was inevitable that school costs would rise much faster than inflation.
Actually, no, they do not have to show the intention to insult. They just have to show that a reasonable person would find something insulting, in a manner that appears to be in violation of company policy. Google is allowed to discharge people for "mistakes".
And that is why Damore is going to get completely crushed. Because starting off with a rambling "you all live in an ideological echo chamber" is a fluffy kind of ad hominem attack. Reasonable people are allowed to be informed by his overt attitude when interpreting his later arguments.
That is a different argument, and it will get its day in court. Apparently. But keep in mind that it is all or nothing for Damore. If Damore said, say, 100 things and the judge agrees that 99 are not offensive to reasonable people, Google's lawyers can still zero in on the one sloppy argument, shove it down his throat, and they win.
I was arguing against suggestions along the lines that facts are facts and can never be offensive. So, if Damore's position actually makes such solid sense, then why do so many defenders have to put forth such an obviously wrong argument, hmmm?
For the record, my personal opinion is that some of Damore's arguments were challenging and uncomfortable and useful, and it is very unfortunate for everyone, especially Damore, that he did not narrow the scope of his document to a cleaner and more focused form. Because he will get hammered for every little bit of sloppiness.
That is, instead of trying to reject more male candidates...
Really now, isn't that obviously a Male Victimhood Fantasy that is unlikely to apply here?
Companies like Google are always hungry for excellent talent and they are not rejecting any such candidate due to gonads.
It is true that Google is making more effort to get target minorities to apply and go through the full interview process. But the intention still appears to be to not hire unqualified candidates. (Of course, intentions and implementation do not always jibe.)
Whether that is exactly fair and whether more lesser candidates are accidentally hired as a result (some mistakes always happen) is a reasonable thing to wonder.
Damore does not wonder so much as emphatically state that a lot of poor quality female engineers are being hired as a result of these policies. His reasoning and evidence happen to be conspicuously thin here. And that is a problem for Damore, because reasonable people will judge his other arguments in the light of this weak argument.