Trying to regulate crypto is like trying to regulate the internet. There are some good attempts, but by using different routes we can circumvent (even in china). Blocked by firewall, use cell, blocked cell towers, use satellite, block satellite??? With crypto, regulate one, fork it, change the network, make another... change the route... use a different crypto/fiat vendor. Good luck.
Right on anonymity, but users doen't care... they just need the "perception of anonymity" or good enough. If you watch teenage trends, it's a great predictor of the near future.
Consider the teen buying weed with the choice of fiat or crypto. On their child bank account under their parent, even if they use cash, those withdrawals raise questions. But that same teen who tells their parent, yeah I just put $300 on coinbase for crypto. Now that teen can use funds without their parents knowing. Sure the trail can be traced back with some work, but it's really hard for the parent. And by trading crypto for cash outside regulated exchanges, it becomes increasingly difficult to unwind anonymity. Now reread this paragraph swapping out teen for average citizen, parent for government, and buying weed for sending money to support mom.
It's ok to not see the use case personally if you don't need it. In 1993 people thought mobile carphones were a pointless trend, and they kindof were -- nobody today uses phones mounted in a leather case in their car to call people. But with some design iteration the most profitable companies on the planet emerged. I think we're at 1993-carphone of blockchain. The use case is kindof there, but as you said the "mainstream" use case hasn't really emerged yet. However that doesn't mean it won't.
^^^ for your user class, probably true. But for others, it is deeply needed. The two mainstream use cases I see are transferring money where a fiat bank was too problematic (fees, limits, audits, etc) and purchasing items with the perception of anonymity (e.g. an incognito subscription with a coingate payment option alongside Visa). It is nice to know there is a way to digitally pay for things without major payment processors running analytics on my spending.
And in providing foreign aid, crypto has helped us reliably transfer funds without corrupt intervention. Culture ebs and flows, but in this case core user needs are being met by the tech.
The Go compiler is also happy with time.Sleep(1000), which the new "expert full stack" dev just PR'd.
To me Durations are a zero sum gain, because in this case they hide relevant detail (int64 nanoseconds) without enforcing usage. Compare it against what Golang could easily provide -- time.SleepMilli(100), which is 40% less characters for my aging eyes to parse than time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond).
After all, in the very same package we have a unit in the name:
We have to be careful with multiple infinities when one takes place after another, and in this case the "<" between two infinities is what I've highlighted as odd.
Indeed as you've illustrated the union of countable sets is countable, but unions aren't appropriate when order matters. The use of an array instead of a set data structure highlights this difference. The negative temperatures in the post begin after +∞. Because ordinals are an extension of enumerability we cannot simply drop ∞ into an array location and still call it enumerable. Speaking from turing recognizability / recursively enumerable languages there is no way for a machine to accept negative integers after all positive integers have been input.
Think of it like an unbounded array of integer temperatures values -- if you keep adding memory you can keep adding more positive values to the end of the array infinitely, each with an indexable location (i.e. enumerating the set). But this concept breaks if we just say we'll throw all the negative values on after infinity; if we're infinitely adding positive values to the array, we'll never have the chance to stop and start with those negative Kelvin values on after. When this happens it's called non-enumerable (or more formally fails the test of diagonalization). It seems that the authors of this system chose to make +infinity an arbitrary enumarable point to show the negative Kelvin values in excess of that point. Having said that, the set of all integers (negative, 0, positive) should be enumerable (because you can just *=-1 each index), but not when infinity is a member of that set. I think there's a numberphile and veratisium on why not all infinity's are equal if curious to explore.
So these negative Kelvin temperatures are just values in excess of +infinite Kelvin?
Reminds me of complexity classes in theoretical CS. It is odd though to join two together on +- scale, because it jams a non-enumerable set into enumeration by making infinity a single tick on the scale.
In the early part of my journey into Wandavision I had no idea why things were the way they were, what was real, or what was the point of what I was watching. It was very unsettling to not be able to tell what was real, even in my reality, and for that I LOVED IT. The last time that happened to me was probably the first Matrix in theater.
At a quick glance it seems rather easy for tiktok to slip in whatever it wants in that source from time to time. Is this the status quo for third party cookies?
When my kids were born I created gmail accounts for them to save the name for when they become old enough to use it. This worked well when I did it from home, but for my last born I created his account *on the hospital wifi*, saved pass in 1pass. A couple years later I tried to login to his account from home and got thrown into this recovery hell. I visited that same hospital wing a year later to try "a prior location", but it didn't work.
As a result I unintentionally caused the very problem I was trying to prevent.
Trying to regulate crypto is like trying to regulate the internet. There are some good attempts, but by using different routes we can circumvent (even in china). Blocked by firewall, use cell, blocked cell towers, use satellite, block satellite??? With crypto, regulate one, fork it, change the network, make another... change the route... use a different crypto/fiat vendor. Good luck.
Right on anonymity, but users doen't care... they just need the "perception of anonymity" or good enough. If you watch teenage trends, it's a great predictor of the near future.
Consider the teen buying weed with the choice of fiat or crypto. On their child bank account under their parent, even if they use cash, those withdrawals raise questions. But that same teen who tells their parent, yeah I just put $300 on coinbase for crypto. Now that teen can use funds without their parents knowing. Sure the trail can be traced back with some work, but it's really hard for the parent. And by trading crypto for cash outside regulated exchanges, it becomes increasingly difficult to unwind anonymity. Now reread this paragraph swapping out teen for average citizen, parent for government, and buying weed for sending money to support mom.
It's ok to not see the use case personally if you don't need it. In 1993 people thought mobile carphones were a pointless trend, and they kindof were -- nobody today uses phones mounted in a leather case in their car to call people. But with some design iteration the most profitable companies on the planet emerged. I think we're at 1993-carphone of blockchain. The use case is kindof there, but as you said the "mainstream" use case hasn't really emerged yet. However that doesn't mean it won't.