4. Someone, maybe etherium can, will figure out how to make the wasted effort of the POW actually valuable in itself
The protocol makes it very hard to make a proof of work that is actually useful, because the proof of work problem has to include the current state of the blockchain itself. For example, if the proof of work was protein folding, solutions for protein folding don't depend on the current state of the blockchain, so there's nothing tying a particular solution to a particular block. That's why foldingcoin is based on bitcoin and not the folding problem itself.
Yeah, I would love to go solar but I rent so it's pretty much up to the landlord. It would be nice to have someone who will work with landlords to get it.
Society is too big for cows to go away completely. Even if the vast majority of meat comes from synthetic sources, there will always be some market for the real thing.
They didn't exactly cash out. $11 probably doesn't cover their expenses. Rather, this was probably some kind of satire of the crypto community. If so, it's fully apt.
I disagree. There's plenty of people willing to stand up and protest destruction of the environment. They are pretty much crushed under the boot of the market. Decreasing demand of energy is key.
Also, I'm very suspicious of a particular type of "environmentalist"--the kind that appreciates the natural beauty of the outdoors, but wants it all for themself. The kind that drives around national parks in big RVs, perhaps owning a large amount of land where they hunt and camp, while feeling smug about themselves for protecting their land from being spoiled by the unwashed masses, while perhaps having an ecological footprint 10-100 times larger than the typical person. They see their actions as sustainable, simply because they are the only ones wealthy enough to do it.
It's possible to enjoy nature at a low footprint, but it requires a certain amount of grit that most people don't possess.
No doubt, retailers make a calculated risk: do the savings in cashier wages exceed the losses from shoplifting? It's likely that they find it cost effective even with moderate increase in shoplifting.
The assumption of the article is that higher IQ is "better". By what metric? If higher IQ is necessarily more advantageous, why did humans evolve to have average IQ's of 100 rather than 180?
You think evolution is some kind of magic bullet? Humans are probably the smartest animals on Earth, and you are asking why humans did not evolve to be even smarter? Maybe that's where we are headed. Why don't you check back in a million years or so?
Slashdot Mirror
It still costs server load and electricity.
But walking or biking means you have to breathe the pollution caused by cars.
It's a tragedy of the commons situation.
I don't mind paying my part for the roads, if car drivers pay their part for pollution.
The government can remove the national debt by inflating the currency or by decree. There's no way to undo the changes to the environment.
Because AIs can potentially be much smarter than humans.
True, but people also use AMD for cryptocurrency.
4. Someone, maybe etherium can, will figure out how to make the wasted effort of the POW actually valuable in itself
The protocol makes it very hard to make a proof of work that is actually useful, because the proof of work problem has to include the current state of the blockchain itself. For example, if the proof of work was protein folding, solutions for protein folding don't depend on the current state of the blockchain, so there's nothing tying a particular solution to a particular block. That's why foldingcoin is based on bitcoin and not the folding problem itself.
Egads, foiled again!
Yeah, I would love to go solar but I rent so it's pretty much up to the landlord. It would be nice to have someone who will work with landlords to get it.
"reputable coins"??
BTW, BMW, Daimler, and VW funded the study. https://www.theguardian.com/bu...
Society is too big for cows to go away completely. Even if the vast majority of meat comes from synthetic sources, there will always be some market for the real thing.
Most vegans I know (I know a lot) hate Tyson foods, but do support Memphis Meats.
I'm a vegan, and I think this is great news. Not everybody is going to go vegan, so giving people an alternative is a net benefit to the world.
They didn't exactly cash out. $11 probably doesn't cover their expenses. Rather, this was probably some kind of satire of the crypto community. If so, it's fully apt.
I disagree. There's plenty of people willing to stand up and protest destruction of the environment. They are pretty much crushed under the boot of the market. Decreasing demand of energy is key.
Also, I'm very suspicious of a particular type of "environmentalist"--the kind that appreciates the natural beauty of the outdoors, but wants it all for themself. The kind that drives around national parks in big RVs, perhaps owning a large amount of land where they hunt and camp, while feeling smug about themselves for protecting their land from being spoiled by the unwashed masses, while perhaps having an ecological footprint 10-100 times larger than the typical person. They see their actions as sustainable, simply because they are the only ones wealthy enough to do it.
It's possible to enjoy nature at a low footprint, but it requires a certain amount of grit that most people don't possess.
We can either cut down the population drastically, or, we can go full matrix and never leave the internet.
I expect better than this trash on /.
You got it backwards. China will require the AI to behave in a manner consistent with the Party.
How the hell can you get a DUI for sleeping in your car in a parking lot? That makes zero sense.
Oh well, we will go to level 3 self-driving cars then.
No doubt, retailers make a calculated risk: do the savings in cashier wages exceed the losses from shoplifting? It's likely that they find it cost effective even with moderate increase in shoplifting.
Psh, just hack the app that identifies you.
Free speech is not treason.
The assumption of the article is that higher IQ is "better". By what metric? If higher IQ is necessarily more advantageous, why did humans evolve to have average IQ's of 100 rather than 180?
You think evolution is some kind of magic bullet? Humans are probably the smartest animals on Earth, and you are asking why humans did not evolve to be even smarter? Maybe that's where we are headed. Why don't you check back in a million years or so?