Ecosystem support for GPU is very strong and so smaller teams might find TPUs to have a steeper learning curve. Sophisticated users can definitely get wins today on TPU if they can get capacity.
And it’s not as if nvidia is standing still, so how the strengths of each change over future generations isn’t set either. Ie TPU are “simple” matrix multipliers and also optimized for operation at scale, GPU are more general purpose and have strong ecosystem power.
Disclaimer - work on GKE on enabling AI workloads.
I feel like this is a weak point. There are countless spam/scam websites out there, because anyone can spin up a page and publish something. That’s why you exercise a bit of caution and skepticism.
That’s the tradeoff of an open web. When you have a limitless design space, you get lots of trash.
But saying “websites are a scam” is just disingenuous to the fact that some websites are very legit and very useful.
What self respecting lawyer would ever advise their client, whom is probably being investigated for criminal charges, to tell their story to the media?
Can't PR play a big part in high profile and political trials? I feel it can definitely be a strategy to try to put your story out before someone else does.
Obviously you're not going to come out and say you're doing this as a PR strategy developed with your legal team, you're going to act like it's a personal risk to yourself to tell your story, which I suppose lends it some credibility in the eyes of some people. Like some of the people in this thread.
The man's a con artist. I'm astounded that people still believe anything he says. I suppose I shouldn't be, he must be a very good con man because he managed to steal billions of dollars.
I recognize the distinction, but I don't believe it makes it particularly valuable.
The concepts are so abstract I have a hard time even discussing it. I'm not a collector or market person at all.
I'd be hard to convince buying anything of this sort of novelty. No judgement against those who do, I just grew up poor and protect my disposable income like a dragon.
The 'pointer' tells me the thing I reportedly own exists as a part of the chain, it doesn't certify any particular uniqueness or rarity, for example.
As long as it's affordable to mint, could I not could lob a personal attack and 'devalue' an NFT by cloning it? I suspect given the amount of speculation around these, it may even prove profitable for some time.
Yes, you could go and mint NFTs claiming to be authentic.
The same way you can try selling fake Rolex’s or picasso’s.
Any serious buyer would attempt to vet the items provenance to make sure it’s authentic. You might be able to pull a quick one on some, but that’s not unique to crypto.
A physical object with provenance is of significantly more historical significance.
A minted basketball card is actually even more anti-fragile than crypto. The crypto network may flop and cease to exist or be relevant. A card is a true artifact of sports history.
> is of significantly more historical significance
Hmm, maybe, or maybe a video representation of the moment, endorsed and co-branded by the league and the athletes, will come to be as valuable or more valuable than a physical photo print of that moment as represented by trading cards.
A trading card doesn’t survive a house fire or flood. How can a card be a true artifact of sports history when its also just a derivative product?
But what happens if/when a large amount of user ETH gets staked in a single country, in a few entities? End users don’t have the motive or skills to move their ETH to platforms or systems that better protect decentralization. The downsides of PoS is worth exploring.
I know ... just let anyone act like the federal reserve for fun and profit. 12,000 cryptocurrencies and "stable coins" later (the number doubled over the last year) --- does anyone really feel like the problem has been fixed?
Crypto is much easier to clone than Facebook --- as evidenced by the fact they are multiplying like rabbits.
The only thing restraining the creation of crypto is the fact that it is virtually unusable as an actual currency. If it were otherwise, every celebrity, politician and corporation would just mint their own continuous stream of the stuff. There is nothing to stop them.
Productive work would become obsolete. Why work to "earn" money when you can just mint it? A lot of life's major problems could be solved instantly by crypto. If you buy this, I've got some crypto to sell you.
You’re failing to realize that value is socially derived.
You're failing to realize that lots of people/companies have a larger social presence than Satoshi Nakamoto and are thus in a much stronger position to derive value from their own crypto.
But most of these have had the good sense thus far to avoid crypto scams due to the potential legal issues. Kim Kardashian being one example of a prominent exception.
Corporations generally avoid creating cryptocurrencies because of the immense regulation and legal work they would have to do. And because banking regulation and compliance is generally out of their wheelhouse. Facebook tried it with their fiat basket backed stable coin.
Crypto isn't regulated at the current time --- at least not in the USA.
However, the fact it isn't regulated doesn't mean they can't be sued in civil court for running a scam. This is what they are really afraid of --- see Kim Kardashian for an example.
This is why crypto bros tend to hide their identify (Satoshi) or re-locate outside the USA and go into hiding once the scam collapses (the guys from 3AC).
BOTTOM LINE: Selling electrons as money from your momma's basement is a shady business in more ways than one. Participate at your own risk.
Yes, but at least greenbacks are backed by real stuff. Backed by the USA, all the millions of workers, the US military, goods being produced, etc. Can a national currency be wiped out? Sure, through mismanagement. BUT, that does not negate the fact that the US dollar is backed by a whole lot of actual assets.
> Yes, but at least greenbacks are backed by real stuff.
Fiat currencies are not “backed”, you have nothing they are even theoretically guaranteed to be exchangeable for, at a fixed rate of currency to commodity, setting a value floor, at least relative to the commodity.
They are, instead, actively managed.
The theory is that this is better, at least for large, geopolitically and economically powerful, countries as issuers, because backing commodities themselves are only at best a limited fit for the (even as a value basis) desirable features of currency, and have somewhat random performance at any given time compared to that “at best”, and active management (which is also not perfect!) seems to be able to do better, if the manager governs a big and powerful enough market to start with.
As I said in a comment to another person, if you go down that road, nothing is "backed."
I'm just talking about regular everyday stuff. The US dollar has been exceedingly strong for a long time, due to many factors, none of which is that it is "backed" by gold or baby diapers or star trek transporters machines or orange juice.
This is just a colloquial conversation. If you want to be exacting, I can write 200 pages on it, complete with sources. But are you going to want to read it? or would I be wasting my time writing a long and thorough explanation? Wouldn't a couple of paragraphs suffice and just not have people nitpick in order to score "gotcha" points?
You misuse the word “backed”. The US economy does not “back” the dollar, figuratively or literally.
America, it’s workers, corporations, military, etc., will happily abandon the dollar should it become necessary. No one wants to be paid in money undergoing massive devaluation.
I'm not misusing the word "backed." I'm assuming some sophistication from the reader.
And to that point, it is true that nothing backs the dollar, but nothing backs nothing if you go down that road.
In past times, when, let's say a city was being attacked and there's a seige, and food runs out, people will sell their $500,000 diamond ring for a potato, so diamonds and gold have no value as compared to a potato.
However, if a meteor like the one that hit the earth 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs, hits again and wipes all of humanity out, there is no "back" of any currency anywhere.
I mean, if you're going to go down that road, let's take it to it's conclusion.
However, in the everyday world, the US dollar has a lot behind it. Like a huge military. No country is going to come in and take over the USA and throw out our money. Because we have a big military. There's a lot of trade going on with greenbacks. It is the world currency.
I'm not saying it is impossible for the dollar to go down the tubes, please don't assume I'm that stupid, nor anyone else is.
But there's a hell of a lot more reasons to stick with US dollars as a store of value, rather than bitcoin. Bit coin has got nothing, just a bunch of narcoterrorists and billionaires trying to smuggle out ill-gotten gains so they don't have to pay taxes. And the speculators working from the greater fool theory.
See "stable coins" --- particularly Tether which underpins more than half of all crypto trades.
It's "fractional reserve banking" --- only worse --- minus any accountability or guarantee of solvency.
Crypto solves all the problems of the Federal Reserve and banking --- simply by mimicing it for fun and profit. If you buy that, I've got some crypto to sell you.
> If you steal my gold or other metal store of value, I can pursue you in court and recover my loss
Stolen property is stolen property. Not all stolen property is recoverable. Even stolen property with a paper trail may not be recoverable (ask Bernie Madoff fraud victims who have expensive lawyers) or may not be compensate-able. Cars, bikes, phones, etc. get stolen every day. If I meet someone to buy something for $1000 cash and they just run off with it, I've little recourse.
I'm a crypto proponent, and I'm pretty pro regulation.
The reason is because integrating current legal systems with crypto actually makes it more powerful and valuable. Existing legal frameworks can be used to link a purely digital world to the physical world; ex. for us to reliably trade tokens in physical assets (house, painting), we need courts and systems we can leverage for confidence and rule of law.
Therein lies a tradeoff and irony, by mixing such systems. You might say "just build it on a centralized system", and in an ideal world that would be great. The problem is that bureaucracy and politicization of systems make it impossible for innovation to occur: simply look at the friction facing car sharing (Uber), online betting/gambling, housing sharing (Airbnb), etc. Those things can't be the wild west, but society is clearly better off and wants those services.
I suspect some jurisdictions will be friendlier to crypto and more willing to explore those spaces. Innovation will flock there, and eventually everyone else will just follow.
