The "14 hours" is a huge exaggeration, but that's to be expected; every advertised battery life I've ever seen is a huge exaggeration. But I have to strongly vouch for this one; it's the first laptop I've seen that actually can actually last more than seven whole hours with Linux. Every other laptop I've tried lasts under four hours, even if it advertises twenty.
Isn't the reason why this is typically not done that VR giving a good experience is very low-latency-dependent, and it's very hard to make wireless connections have an ultra-low latency?
What fascinates me most is that the errors are very "human-like". If you gave me multi-digit multiplication and addition problems like that, I would frequently have similar results of getting most digits right but making a mistake on one or a few of them.
When I do mental arithmetic my brain frequently tokenizes into digit pairs or triples if I can recognize pairs and triples that have specific properties.
"224" is actually a really nice object to recognize because it's 7 * 32, and if you can recognize other multiples of 32 it frequently gives you shortcuts. It's less useful for addition because you would need to get lucky and get a multiple of 32 (or 7) on both sides, but for multiplication and division it helps a lot.
In this case it's the bridge that's fairly centralized. There wasn't any hard forks or other manipulation of the underlying blockchains (except for sending transactions on them).
I think I was referring there more to all the laws _other_ than GDPR (eg. the more data-nationalist stuff) that nevertheless end up having a similar effect.
Glen Weyl (the economist who has done a lot of work on quadratic voting, mentioned in the article) has also written and talked extensively about Harberger taxes and quadratic funding; the former is a fairly deep change to how property rights work, and the latter is a way of democratically allocating funds to public projects. I would definitely encourage reading up on both of those!
Lots of things "don't need" to be written in python, but they're written in python anyway. I expect a lot of blockchain institutional use cases will take a similar route: sure, theoretically they could use some standardized federated solution, but in practice blockchain tx fees will become low enough through layer-2s to be negligible and that's where all the infrastructure to help users verify what's going on, and use those verifications in other applications, will be built. NFTs are already an incredibly easy to use and verify type of certificate; their biggest weakness is that (because of limitations in technology that are completely temporary and will disappear soon) transaction fees are too high.
> Thinkpads are way cheaper(and AFAIK they also provide very good Linux support)
My own experience with thinkpads has been one of non-stop frustration with battery life. The T495 advertises something like 14h of battery life; the actual battery life I got running stock Ubuntu on it was.... less than 3 hours, and that's with power optimization packages that do things like making USB no longer work installed. I recently switched to a system76, and so far its battery lasts easily 6-9 hours depending on what I'm doing.
I would argue in 2021 the only thing that qualifies as "an entire society" is the whole world.
So unless you're measuring the world as a whole, you're measuring communities that have porous relationships with the outside world to some degree or other. But of course, cryptocurrencies are still much more porous than countries are.
The whole point of my post was that instead of the Gini we should use a more targeted index that specifically measures the presence of super rich that can unilaterally flood the market with their coins, and does not concern itself with whether the long tail of users has 0.03 coins each or 0.003 coins each.
Co-author here. I definitely use the phrase "public goods" in the economic sense: goods that are non-rival and non-excludable.
This post has nothing to do with assurance contracts (which that paper seems at first glance to be equivalent to). Instead, it's tackling the different problem of what if there is some established mechanism that is already collecting fee revenue, and it wants to do use that revenue to support its wider ecosystem.
The oracle is not monolithic for information-optimization reasons. Rather, it's monolithic because there's a single project that has funds that it's willing to give out in retroactive grants, and so _some_ mechanism must decide where those funds go.
(This is perhaps what's not clear to readers from outside the crypto space: all of these discussions are assuming that this is being implemented by some project that has network effects and can extract fees that are necessary anyway for congestion-control reasons, where the only remaining question is where those funds go)
The closest thing to those concepts in crypto would be multisig wallets, including more advanced ones that enforce a "daylimit" where a single key can withdraw a small amount but larger amounts require confirmations from multiple keys or a delay during which another key can cancel the transfer.
https://vitalik.ca/general/2019/05/12/fft.html
Ctrl+F for "binary fields".