The problem is not about if the MAX is the safest airplane now. If Boeing can get away with it like that then it lowers the general airplane safety in my opinion. Now that Boeing has designed an airplane by cutting corners to safe money (even though it did cost them a lot, the government saved them), then this means that other airplane manufacturers must also cut corners to stay competitive.
I don't agree. This way it is a) easier to onboard _receivers_, and b) stays open in the sense that _senders_ can send bitcoins by any app they want (including non-custodial of course).
Lightning network is "off-chain". Basically a network of 2-of-2 locked bitcoins called _channels_ that exchange valid Bitcoin transactions to update the balances within these channels, but only need to settle them by broadcasting them to the Bitcoin network in case of disputes.
That's true I was also thinking about it this way. Granted I hadn't read the whole paper and it is very philosophical, but I don't know how simulations with varying constants over time could help explain the early state of e.g. the big bang, which remains a mysterium for a unifying theory.
I won't fly on it and I don't care how safe it is. The precedent it sets is terrifying. I know people say Boeing got a "black eye" from it, but in reality getting out of this that easy sets them up to a dangerous advantage over competitors in my perspective. Competitors can't compete on safe terms and will have to reduce safety to stay competitive, which ignites a very bad spiral...
Which part of Spain are you referring to? Because at least in Valencia I was surpassed to find a ton of cctv in public spaces like parks and busy streets.
The simple fact for Boeing to continue "operating as usual" without real consequences dis-aligns incentives that have been present until now in air travel making it so safe. The precedence it creates can ripple so that e.g. Airbus also slacks on safety to stay competitive if this is the new normal...
I haven't looked at this course yet, but it is by the same creator of another free Golang course called gophercises.com.
It was a fantastic way for me to learn as it provides a ton of small real life projects as exercises with videos of how to build them with live coding.
The strongest hypothetical argument against the consumption is that Bitcoin incentivizes green energy. The mining operation is mostly interested in one thing: access to the cheapest electricity possible. Currently China is still subsidizing electricity, which has attracted a lot of Chinese miners and apparently is tolerated by the state.
But in the longer run I believe that Bitcoin will be the thing that will allow investments into green energy on a big scale. This is currently only happening by e.g. governments guaranteeing a minimum electricity price with other horrible consequences (see Germany: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...).
Bitcoin however provides the incentive by itself to invest into green energy. This also is regardless of the fact that where there are optimal conditions for green energy often no infrastructure is available to add it to the grid. Bitcoin only needs an internet connection and consumes energy on-site.
Regarding arguments that compare transactions with energy spent (comparing apples-to-banana...), I will make a counter-comparison: "The amount of electricity consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the USA alone" spends three times the energy of the Bitcoin network (see "Fun Facts" at https://www.cbeci.org/comparison).
Comparing the energy consumption of a transaction is meaningless, because this transaction may enable thousands of off-chain transactions (see Lightning network) and vary in actually block-spent-size depending on if it aggregates many actual transactions or not. It also shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of energy went into it in the first place, since otherwise the whole point of Bitcoin, namely being open, borderless, censorship-resistant and neutral, wouldn't be possible.
It's like saying that all the many maintenance checks of airplanes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks) wastes so and so many hours and energy of engineers' work-time, just because you don't see that they make air travel safer.
Although I would like to think that the next generation will be renowned for the "tinkerers of something else that comes out", it is also true that industry and society has changed a lot in that regard. Back in your parents day, your dad was able to have a holistic view on his car and repair many parts also because it was more simple back then. And it was also possible to repair TVs, toasters, lawnmower and whatnot. This has just completely changed for many reasons. Things are becoming more complex and more "consumer-friendly". But in fact "consumer-friendly" nowadays feels more and more like keeping the user limited (or maybe even stupid) to never even try to ask questions/put the technology into perspective finding new use cases for him/herself or even fixing things for themselves (think about Apple policies...). So I do believe that for "tinkerers" to have a come-back a completely new era would first have to evolve again.