In most variations of such a calculation the expected number of planets would be 0. The fact that the actual answer is >= 1 might suggest that the calculation is not an accurate representation of reality.
Manipulative, maybe. But why grossly? All you are doing is making the other person feel good. It should be encouraged and celebrated. If you have a choice between making someone feel neutral, or feel great, why wouldn't you choose great?
Bank of America and Bitcoin both have market caps of ~$290 billion. Bank of America usually sees huge trading volume for a stock and it traded about $1.8 billion of volume today. BTC/USD alone has done $3 billion today.
I realize it's not a perfect comparison, but I think it highlights the fact that large sales aren't going to just decimate bitcoin's value.
I think the cool thing about this idea is that "cats" is just one possibility. It can work just as well with nearly anything that requires proof of ownership or uniqueness. Maybe property or mineral rights, or stock and other securities, etc.
I know I guy who has "Rape Me" tattooed on his chest. It's his favorite Nirvana Song. For the most part, tattoos are a form of art and expression. Phrases such as "death wish" or "kill me" are pretty common, and are absolutely not meant as instructions. The idea of DNR is pretty popular in certain artistic circles. There is an incredible amount of ambiguity in this situation.
Yes. The same applies to when you trade bitcoin for other cryptocurrencies. Although it is technically one transaction, if you want to be safe you should treat it as two separate transactions:
I'm not at all surprised that there are women who code and want to share that with others. I'm thrilled that there is more and more of this type of stuff on Instagram. This is how we reach audiences we normally wouldn't.
I think an important thing your average non-cs grad developer can learn from her story is the importance of networking. Maybe networking isn't the quite the correct term. But she put herself out there starting at 15, wrote and shared what she did. I'm sure she made a lot of contacts, even if only through the internet. She created an image for herself. Without that there is nothing to set you apart from everyone else in your situation. So it's not surprising that she had multiple recruiters reaching out to her during bootcamp. Good for her.
If you are interested in these questions I think it will be worth it to spend some time and do a bit of research, no?
You can look up Peter Singer and Yuval Noah Harari to start with and read what they have written about this. I mention them because they write well and mainly stick to scientifically supported ideas.
I haven't decided where I stand on the issues yet, but with a little research it has become apparent that you can have a very healthy diet without any protein form animals.
I've also discovered that more and more philosophers, ethicists, biologists etc, are starting to make the argument that our factory farming of animals may be the the worst crime in human history.
Even with a rig like that it will take around 10 months to break even. Ethereum will be moving to proof of stake in the future. There is no set date but it could be in approximately 1 year. At that point all these gpu rigs will need to switch to other less profitable cryptocurrencies.
We're reaching the point where it may not be possible to break even before Ethereum switches to proof of stake. Consequently, it's recently become easier and cheaper to buy gpus suited to mining.
Amazon shareholder letters seem to be becoming the new Berkshire shareholder letters [0]. They are friendly, engaging, and most importantly, written by an author who steadfastly holds by principles that haven't changed in decades.
If you haven't read any of the berkshire letters you really should.
In proof of stake a single node decides what the next block added to chain is. This node gets the block reward and any transaction fees. They don't have to do any calculations, they simply get to decide, according to a set of rules, which transactions are in the next block. (Ethereum complicates this a bit by having multiple nodes "bet" which blocks will be accepted, instead of just one node choosing the block)
In order to decide who gets to be this node, people Stake coins. The probability that you are the chosen node is proportional to the number of coins you have staked. If you are chosen, and you do something against the rules, like double spend coins and try and add this to the next block, then you lose your staked coins.
So instead of rewards being proportional to hashing power, they are proportional to staked coins.
This is still being tested, but it's going pretty well.
> All the good bits of blockchain, we already had in git
This is not true at all and shows a common misunderstanding of why the blockchain is useful.
The big breakthrough with blockchains and crypto currencies has very little to do with it it being a ledger with signed hashes. There are two main "good bits" of the blockchain:
- it provides a consensus algorithm to agree on a set of updates to the ledger. Not in git.
- it provides a mechanism for anyone to take part in this consensus algorithm while preventing sybil attacks. Also not in git.
Many of these systems are designed such that if you do have the computational power to attack the integrity of the chain, it is actually more profitable to put that power to use for legitimate mining.
Having 51% of the computational power does not let you just make up transactions on your own or transfer funds to your own wallet. What it does allow you to do is pay a counter-party, receive some product from them, and then go back and create a new chain where you paid yourself, instead of the counter-party.
I really really hope they have fixed their supply issues this time around. I live in the 4th largest city in North America and I was unable to get a Pixel within a reasonable amount of time.
Well, it's no closer to centralization than proof of work is. If one, or more than one party working together control >50% of the staked coins you are left with the same result as one party controlling 50% of the hashing power.