that price is for barracudas. then you will be lucky to replace them every 2 years.
wd gold and others that will last 5~10years are actually more expensive for 4TB ($500) because they are old stock for people that for some reason need that model.
The sweet spot for top quality HDD is always 200~300. In whatever capacity du jour. (14~20TB today)
nitipicking drive cost aside, the monthly services are the bulky of the cost.
That's probably the most ridiculous answer there is.
1. The chance that something like Bitcoin is a logical virus and being though of is.not that far fetched. All of it's tec was already here.
2. Just because people believe in Bitcoin and don't understand it doesn't make it fair.
3. People like to think about it because he is still the inventor even if his invention is responsible for a tremendous amount of CO2 and he should be very rich which makes this 'mystery' interesting
And as said in a thread yesterday: Bitcoin doesn't even solve the trust issue.
If you do something on the block chain with your Bitcoins it's save.
Just that the only thing it does is making sure you can send or retrieve a Bitcoin securely but that you need other security mechanism to make sure the trade is protected gets ignored.
Like every trade involving something outside the chain is still not save.
Buying Bitcoin, selling Bitcoin, trading a Bitcoin for a service.
Just integrated with payment APIs Stripe, Braintree & Coinbase. I let them handle recurring transactions while my system handles setting up those recurring transactions including pricing, prorating, discounts, and trials.
Of course you need a trust anchor. How would would it work otherwise?!
If you can come up with a system where we could just all imagine up the same blockchain code, parameters, and have the code magically appear on our machines to run, that would be cool, but seems not really possible to me?
OTOH, what you can do with bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, is download the code, review it, see if you agree to the rules laid out in the code, and if so, run it, and participate.
If you don't have the technical knowledge to do this, like 99.99% of people, you can delegate that trust of verifying and explaining it, to someone of your choosing.
No-one is expecting on-chain ledgers to solve off-chain trust. What they can do is make the process more transperant, more decentralized, and give people a much wider choice. You might look at this as competition. Alternatively you might sit on hn and hope to get a job in ad-tech.
Counterfeits exist in real life too, bit crypto has the benefit that you can actually prove who created something where in real life a good counterfeit could remain undetected.
It allows you to show what key signed a record. It doesn’t tell you what person used that key, whether they were acting in good faith, or whether they had the right information. If you want to know any of those things you have to pay real auditors to check real world status, and at that point you’re going to ask why you need to pay so much more to use a slow database which requires always-on internet connectivity when you’d get the same value from a Yubikey or iPhone’s builtin cryptographic primitives.
In real life, counterfeiting is dealt with at multiple levels: legal, communal, technological. Laws are written to deter the act with punitive measures. Communities share information about how to spot counterfeits. Technology is used to make the act of copying harder.
The folly of NFTs, energy footprint aside, is thinking that a well-written smart contract is all that's needed to stop counterfeits.
Yeah but the crypto is outside of the object of desire. I too can give you a signed paper that tells you that you now own the Mona Lisa. You can even formally verify that the signature is real and by me!
Notice anything?
The important questions for you remain unanswered:
- Do I actually have the rights to sell you the thing I try to sell you?
- What do I actually sell you?
- Am I who I claim I am?
- etc.
NFTs are not answering any of these questions, they are the equivalent of an elaborate signature on the contract of the guy trying to sell you a bridge.
Yep… I can totally prove this random pseudonym/anonnym is definitely the same one that has… never been used before because due to social incentives you want zero links between identities and thus the web of trust is just a sea of filaments floating loose in an ocean
An ocean filled with fish poop…
It’s so great I can definitively verify that this ID is something… but that’s absolutely fucking pointless if I have no way to judge if the entity or entities controlling it, connected to it, supporting it, or even associated with it (to consider potential future actions)… the goal was noble but the implementation completely failed because to succeed would have required the participants to build anchors in the real world of verifiable identities… and for all the value people get from day to day use of cryptocurrencies… the biggest value of crypto was in staying as far away from the real world as possible allowing such things as drug purchases and international money laundering and illegal gambling at a level low enough to evade legal enforcement services coming after the players (since obviously if they could come after the casino/house they would since that’s where all the money is)
That's the story pretty much all over Europe: Italy, France, Britain... They all have problems with seasonal floods that are very recent. It's not that they were dry countries before, and overall annual rainfall is often lower than it was in the past, but it creates more problems because it's much more concentrated on shorter and shorter timespans.
I argue that compression and not memorization is key to emerging behavior.
And the fact that llms learn languages and can switch quite well in-between (even if you just replace single words) is proof of learning meta/high level abstractions.
I sometimes write a German word or describe something when I don't have it on the tip of my tongue
Wikipedia has all primary sources at the bottom linked.
You don't need to trust wikipedia. You should trust the sources linked.
Wikipedia is basically a group collaboration on fact aggregation.
Why should you believe a random blog or a blog from an oil company more than a open collaborative group project which works transparent (site history+talk feature)?
For example, omitting relevant things, focusing on only some considered more important by some people, using impressive data to impress people with no deep idea sbout a topic without knowing how to interpret data relative to the full phenomena... the list is endless.
What is a fact is that politicians and secret services, according to Pedro Baños, often enter and manipulate in subversive ways information, specifically he mentioned controversial Wikipefia articles. He is a retired military.
So my advice is that we should all doubt by default about every topic that is politicized and gather information from as many sources as we can that we have a reason to trust. An open place where absolutely everyone can add and remove things is not a source I would take as primary. Yes , there are links. But the time it takes to go through all that is unfeasible for most people.
My advice: choose many sources, compare. Specifically, there is nothing as enriching as putting people with different opinions face to face for a live discussion. I fo not like arguments like 80% of "experts" say... that is not an argument... and science has plenty of examples where almost everyone was wrong, from whcih this man is an example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
He was beaten to death and enjailed in a madhouse, even their mates ignored him at the time. He was right.
What usually happens in these forums is that they do a lot of cherry-picking, or, at least, that is what I believe. I could be wrong, though.
I never delete those snapshots because the big items like images don't change.