Do they use the replicator when they’re not moving? Maybe they’re just picking up some hydrogen along the way?
Seems like high energy particles are easier to convert into new elements than low energy ones. Perhaps they’re transcribing uranium with the ingredients. Who knows.
A cup of tea is around 500megatons if you convert all the matter into energy. We’re talking a few thousand Hiroshimas.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Of course that’s how sanctions work… against nations. Linux isn’t a country, it’s not an American asset. They could have resisted. Linus chose not to.
Do they? They could have just isolated those commits as sanctioned and added a warning. Linux hates Russians as a Finn, so didn’t need much convincing to remove them.
I would be singing a different tune if our allies invading other countries at the moment were also sanctioned, but that’s not the case.
As it stands, let the individuals escape the nation state punishment. They didn’t start this war, and likely don’t support it.
It’s on sa, so ok.
Removed by mod
Exactly. All the influencer hype and excitement over a locked down arm ecosystem with evaporating battery life advantages. No thank you. Development efforts are better served elsewhere. I would prefer the Linux community ignore it rather than support it at the expense of RISC-V.
This is what I was think also. Just let the host rproxy the requests and just map the dns to the host in opnsense.
It’s almost like the whole customized apps to fit into the GTK framework concept creates too much added work and needs to be rethought.
I don’t understand why someone should choose any GTK variant when they’ll have to refactor and rewrite their application every few years.
That value was increased initially through usage as countries adopted ATMs and online retailers accepted bitcoin. This obviously reduced the supply due to increased demand. Then the speculators started buying it up making it even more scarce.
It has a fixed amount. It’s normal to rise in value as it becomes more useful for either transacting, holding value, or making money through speculation. You can’t compare it to a 300 year old dollar which was unpegged from gold and has the US economy/government backing it now.
The dollar is also manipulated, but the effects are less pronounced due to the sheer amount in circulation around the world. Some of the effects are also thrown on other economies through the Forex markets too. If bitcoin were as ubiquitous as the $, it wouldn’t be easy to manipulate either. It’s like having your own coin with only 100 physical coins in circulation. All someone has to do is buy a bunch and refuse to sell and the value rises for the uninformed.
No tech is perfect. And the current bitcoin is not the same as the original client. It has been modified to allow for abuse and control. The fact that we allow this to take place is more a reflection of our governments aiming to control it than any inherent property of the currency.
Big banks would have far less control if you couldn’t print sanctioned currency to buy as much bitcoin as they want to play with the value set by sanctioned exchanges.
I agree that bitcoin is capitalist like most monetary bills in a free market. I disagree it’s more capitalist than what we have now. It’s just being propagandized and veiled from the underlying technology to make it seem so.
By design, it will slowly stop inflating at the snails pace it does vs unpegged paper currency.
A central bank regulating where money is printed and to whom it’s distributed at what contrived rates is horrifying. It’s also the default in most of the world.
You can trade bitcoin and use it as a currency in a non-capitalist market. The fact that it has been abused and traded into stratospheric value is a result of manipulation, sanctioned exchanges, and propaganda.
Bitcoin just allows you to write debits and credits on a distributed, verified, ledger. That’s it really. How the market is regulated is on the people, not the technology. There is nothing inherently capitalist about the technology other than allowing any individual to trade value with another in a free market manner. You would be trying to escape supply and demand dynamics to remove that “capitalist” aspect of it.
The power draw on the other hand… the first imagining of a digital decentralized and distributed currency was bound to have some problems.
Bitcoin is hypercapitalist? A decentralized value store not controlled by any one country and immune to money printing inflation? What are you smoking?
I think at the point AI can “replace” artists, the individual becomes the artist. A much less exclusionary field if you don’t have the drawing ability. It becomes just another advanced paint brush.
The true creatives will still find a way to stick out. The definition of “art” will change.
I recently commissioned a logo because AI is terrible at it. Once that becomes good enough, I don’t see myself paying another $100 when I can generate it for nearly free. I had submissions for the logo that were clearly AI generated. It’s the same problem with search, you won’t know what’s human unless you dig. It harms artists, but technology improvement always leaves a trail of industries obsoleted. The technology is here, it makes some work more efficient. If you cripple it now to save jobs, you’ll limit the investment and any future gains due to fear of repeat. I think the key is to look at it as a tool, not a replacement. It can certainly help you flush out your ideas and write a better book.
I need a cover for my novel. Hold on real quick while I get this 4 year degree and spend $80k to send an fu to the AI overlords and design it myself.
After that I’ll throw my shovels away and use spoons instead.
This is why I switched also. More and more reports of NPM just breaking out of the blue.