That what you said, please don't put words into my mouth. My only point is that bitcoin (or crypto in general) would make a horrible currency if widely adopted. And it has nothing to do with any technical limitations related to bitcoin, extremely deflationary tokens just make a horrible currency (unless no growth, deflation and a permanent economic depression).
> Your substantive and well-reasoned argument
It certainly wasn't intended to be perceived as such.
(trying to make well-reasoned arguments when arguing with quasi-religious fanatics is a waste of time.. ).
> Whether you've taken a few photos with your phone's camera or you're a professional photographer with terabytes of digital negatives, Adélie gives you the tools you need to manage and view all your photos.
You get all the benefits of Zig being able to choose the function ABI, but if the optimization would have caused a bug, you'll get an immediate panic at the function entrypoint, instead of silently corrupted data.
> The Whistleblower Program was created by Congress to provide monetary incentives for individuals to come forward and report possible violations of the federal securities laws to the SEC. Under the program, eligible whistleblowers are entitled to an award between 10 and 30% of the monetary sanctions collected in actions brought by the SEC and related actions brought by certain other regulatory and law enforcement authorities.
How is it impossible? I would think an MD5 quine exists with probability approaching 1 as the size of the document grows to infinity. Think about the reduced problem:
1. a document containing "1", whose hash begins with "1"
2. a document containing "12", whose hash begins with "12"
3. a document containing "123", whose hash begins with "123"
#1 is certain to exist. #2 exists, but would take 16x as long to brute force. #3 would take 16x longer again. If this pattern doesn't continue until 2^128, where would it stop, and why?
All hashes can be brute forced this way, even secure ones SHA-2. Its security relies on the fact that the earth doesn't contain enough computing power to execute a brute force attack within the universe's lifetime.
Also the fact that it would need to be constrained to 7-bit ASCII only, and on top of that be "valid" in its natural language. It's a neat trick to make two documents look completely different with the same hash, but looking at the techniques which are required, they all rely on a binary file format and copious amounts of data which are effectively "hidden" --- all of which do not apply to a text file.
Maybe try to have a look at it as permutations: the mapping "hex of the hash" → "its actual hash" is a (presumably random) permutation. And it's quite probable that such permutation has a fixed point: http://laurentmazare.github.io/2014/09/27/fixed-points-of-ra...
The problem is that we currently don't know how find it more efficiently than with exhaustive search, AFAIK.
In a way that means the copyright lobbyists have won. You don't find the list interesting now, but 14+14 years after 1928 you would have. A lot of it would still be fresh in our collective minds. Now in 2024, most of it is dead to us.
What about 14+14 years ago (1996)... can you think of any music/movies from the mid-90s or before that would be interesting to remix? I sure can. But very few people are still going to care in 1996+95 = the year 2091.
But wasn't that the point? While any interest remained, the copyright holders wanted to milk every last drop of money to be paid for it.
Note, copyright holders often don't have your best interest in mind (like cultural enrichment or fun), or the original author's interest (like posthumous fame). They manage a property, an immutable and depreciating one.
So instead of "There is a good identity", GP should have said "There are about 200 good identities around the world, but if your country happens to not have a single unified ID system you're out of luck"
I'd never use an account someone else made for me either. Who knows if after you created it, you added some recovery questions or a recovery email or saved the login cookie or who knows what else? I'll stick with my fresh account made on my own PC through my own connection, thanks.
The problem with benchmarking that claim is there's no one true "json decoder" that everyone uses. You choose one based on your language -- JSON.stringify if you're using JS, serde_json if you're using Rust, etc.
So what people are actually saying is, a typical protobuf implementation decodes faster than a typical JSON implementation for a typical serialized object -- and that's true in my experience.
Tying this back into the thread topic of search engine results, I googled "protobuf json benchmark" and the first result is this Golang benchmark which seems relevant. https://shijuvar.medium.com/benchmarking-protocol-buffers-js... Results for specific languages like "rust protobuf json benchmark" also look nice and relevant, but I'm not gonna click on all these links to verify.
In my experience programming searches tend to get much better results than other types of searches, so I think the article's claim still holds.
I agree. You wouldn't use encoding/json or serde-json if you had to deserialize a lot of json and you cared about latency, throughput, or power costs. A typical protobuf decoder would be better.
I am not sure how far Photoshop takes their filters but those bills aren't actually replicas nor can they be mistaken on reasonable examination (a cashier glancing at them)
Typically their texts read "For movie use only" over the seals in the middle or other things that make it clearly distinguishable as fake money that isn't legal tender. I think some of them flip the heads backwards or do other things so it immediately fails the sniff test.
- 5G causes cancer
- bitcoin is a scam
Your substantive and well-reasoned argument fits right in with that list ;)