Agreed. And, btw, they are not going against token developers or miners but against companies that are profiting from selling securities without complying to the regulations and some times even wash trading them.
That article performs some sleight of hand, where nodes "control" the currency. Nodes sign transactions publicly, they don't control anything. They can't covertly pick the wrong transaction to sign, if they do it will be very visible.
I mean, I may be wrong, but don't consensus between miners determine whether a block is valid or not? Specifically, 51% of mining power determines this, AFAIK.
Yes, but you can verify blocks independently and see that someone verified a block that was actually invalid. It's not something that can remain secret.
But you won't verify the blockchain and call every node to say "hey! big corp X is cheating". The consensus protocol is what it is and if 51% agree on anything it will go on. We are at the mercy of 4 giants messing with the chain. Also probably simple double spending could be noticed and proven wrong but, for instance, rolling back a transaction would still be possible breaking the immutability of the blockchain.
the problem though is what happens if he gets sick or needs to move on, or the passion fades? Now you need to hire someone who may not be motivated in the same way, and if compensation is low for the duties entailed, you won't get what you need.
It's not good to undervalue work because you really rely on the gift of the worker to keep the project going.
HN is most US based, that’s one of the richest countries on earth where their citizens suffering from epilepsy wear bracelets to warn others not to call an ambulance.
Taking HN into nationalistic flamewar is exactly the wrong thing to do here and we ban accounts that do it. Please keep this sort of off-topic flamebait off this forum.
I don't understand. They say the observable universe contains 10x more galaxies than previously thought, and the reason for that is the concentration of galaxies being greater in the part of the universe that our telescopes can't see?
The Observable Universe is the part of the total universe that we can theoretically observe because electromagnetic radiation from it has had time to reach us. In practice, some of this radiation will be detectable with current technology and some of it will be too faint.
The article is about work, using models of galaxy formation, that tries to better estimate the number of galaxies we can't detect due to limits on telescope sensitivity, but which are nevertheless theoretically observable.
It might be useful to describe the detectable part of the observable universe as the "visible universe", but astronomers have a different meaning for that. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe.
"observable universe" is a technical term for the part of the universe from which light has had enough time to travel to us. It doesn't mean we can literally observe it using current tech.
You can't just ignore the photos, videos, testimonies, articles in international media with different ideologies only to base your thesis in "It's my opinion". Well, in fact you can, but your opinion doesn't deserve to be respected.
Nobody questions the attack - the only unknown is who perpetrated it. Whoever planned it knew very well that using a chemical weapon, especially on civilians, is likely to meet a very strong reaction. We've seen it in the past. That raises questions why anyone would do it, especially Assad who is now winning the war.
There are so many possibilities here. One of them is that Trump is being manipulated by the intelligence.
My first thought was: "Oh, great! If slave labor is not efficient anymore there will be no more slave workers in the world". On a second thought (and based on our history), that probably will be true, but only because people that today are working just for a plate of rice will starve to death.
It's fairly clear (and distasteful) that economically, slave labor is inefficient because you have to feed/house them or you lose the 'investment'. In contrast, you can pay someone well below a living wage with virtually no penalty. This is why so many people at the low end of the labor pool have multiple jobs.
Slaves are capital, and, like all capital, acquiring and maintaining them has nonzero cost.
In the antebellum American South, some tasks like ditch-digging were sufficiently hazardous that a plantation owner would rather not risk their investment in their slaves, and so would hire Irish ditch-diggers by the day, as the plantation owner would be out less money if they died while digging the ditch.
Somewhat off topic, but I can't figure out how ditch-digging would be particularly hazardous? The only danger I can think of would be a wall collapsing, but that could surely be avoided..
