This is known and well understood. Bitcoin's implementation consumes lots of energy.
There have been however lots of developments in the blockchain space, especially as it refers to different proof systems and algorithms. The alt-coins in general, though mostly badly viewed due to the often poor and sleazy behaviours, are a playing ground for exactly this kind of problem.
I won't give specific names because I'm not an advocate for any one in particular, but there are several other coins and implementations that try to do away with the energy consumption and improve scaling. Some have even gotten to the point of eliminating mining and transaction fees altogether (yup, zero fees: transfer value anywhere in the world, instantly, and pay absolutely nothing for doing so).
A quick google search should point you in the right direction if it sounds interesting.
If BTC has any value at all, then all other cryptocurrencies have at least some minimum value solely as a possible redundacy or replacement in case of emergency.
That's not the whole story though, some of these other cryptos also serve as a testbed for new concepts & improvements, differ in particular ways to better suit a specific purpose, target different markets, have different core values or are alltogether alternate technical implementations.
Each one of those nuances adds some deegree of value. As with any stock or other economic asset, their price today is not necessarily reflecting the value it has for practical use today, but rather the possibility that it will become necessary or more dominant in the future.
That's exactly what capital flight is (one of its forms), and what most thrid-world countries try to avoid by these banning practices. They (we) have shitty unstable currencies and broken banking systems that the people have no trust in, so they use their savings to buy USD (hard to do in these countries) or Bitcoin to maintain value. Note that money doesn't even need to leave the country for it to be a form of capital flight; just the fact alone that you're buying foreign currency or Bitcoin in a black market.
I consider this clickbait at this point.
This is the exact same thing that has been said during every single boom in Bitcoin's history.
You may like Bitcoin or not, but the concepts of cryptocurrencies and the technical development that the blockchain represents are here to stay. They are being adopted left and right by the banking sector all around the world.
We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already.
I've seen people and posts here and there calling for attention on these issues, but imho it's all too subtle. We should start using harsher terminology for what's actually happening. This is flat out CORRUPTION, and I'm not seeing anyone express it as such.
It's probably too late already, and unfortunately, this is merely a reflection on what's happening in the world in the larger geo-political context. Corruption everywhere.
Yes, please. It's a two way street, if they want the traffic, open the content. We all know there's clear value to the traffic a well positioned HN post brings.
If I pay a 5 USD subscription and just play 2 games, one for an hour and the other for 10 hours; who will get what and when?
Also, being a subscription model, does this imply now all of these games are online-only? If I'm offline, a game does not know if my subscription is valid/active. How is that handled?
What happens later, when I cancel my subscription? I don't see an easy way for you to protect the games once a user has downloaded all of them and cancelled your service.
The wikipedia article doesn't mention it, but just like Tom Sachs spent time at Gehry's shop and adopted this term and practice; so did Casey Neistat spent time at Sachs' shop, where he also adopted it (and probably made it more well known than ever before). If you've seen Casey's videos or pictures of his famous NY studio; this is where it all came from.
I'm not for or against either side, but what you just said is just plain wrong and it looks as if you are the one who has not read either the paper or the forum post. He did not mention payment chains either in the paper or the old original post about block size.
How does the announcement of Kite Enterprise (twice!!) fit within the supposed "apology"?? It has absolutely nothing to do with either project.
It's ironic actually. Within their "apology" they are doing the EXACT same thing they are apologizing for: sneaking in some more advertising of their products.
So you're extrapolating your own personal successful experience with every case and every possible setting, while also showing quite a bit of prejudice towards the author.
He does make valid points, and furthermore, as others have said, a 6 mile radius in a city like London covers hundreds of thousands of people.
I can and would argue until infinity that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for a 6 mile radius warning in the event of 1 (one) single building on fire. Weather you like it or not or agree with FB or not, this was a completely localized event of minimal or no impact (other than maybe traffic for a couple of blocks??) to such an area.
The same is clearly not true for events of other nature (natural disasters, nuclear, maybe manhunts but I already find that one questionable.., etc.)
That is to say, the service is not evil or a bad idea. The criticism is more on the execution and the unnecessary, rather opportunistic, abuse of such an event.
If the author is indeed biased because he did not live through such an event, then you are most definitely also biased because you did live through one; and you certainly seem to be not only receptive and even defensive, but apparently offended.
This was more of yet another case of attention grabbing, manipulative and opportunistic behaviour with a good samaritan cover.
Make no mistake: salesmen, media (in all formats), advertisers, politicians and companies of all sorts have been doing this for centuries.
I understand you lived through an instance where this helped, but a single building on fire does not equal a natural disaster. The scale and impact is just very different, there is no arguing that.
It's pretty simple actually: there is (should be) an appropriate level of response and a corresponding correct setting. In this particular case, it was way way off. Don't let your personal experience prevent you from recognizing that, for it's the same thing you accuse him of.
And again, even acknowledging that, you may still not agree that it was done with an opportunistic intention; and that's fine, but it shouldn't prevent you or anyone from openly discussing where the correct boundaries are.
Build a side-project about something you're passionate about that you can showcase, both in production and Github.
I've always done this, and it worked out great for me even to the point of forgoing the technical part of a couple of interviews (two of which landed me jobs).
I constantly see submissions here that do not use the original title. In fact, I have noticed that some/most of the time (I regularly save links from here in a personal db) the altered titles do a better job of summarizing the article than the original title. It happens to me all the time that I choose to save the link using HN's title instead of the original (better results when using it as tags).
If there is such a rule, it might merit more/finer discussion.
I currently work remotely for a NY based company, from South America.
AFAIK, what makes it possible is that we are hired as freelancers/consultants/contractors under what I understand is a pretty standard "Work for Hire" contract.
For the tax side of things, the company needs remote workers to sign a W-8BEN form (W-9 if the remote worker is a US citizen abroad), which states that the worker takes care by himself of taxes in his own Country.
I believe not.