If I were Apple, I'd try to arbitrage these exploits by getting somebody on the inside to find out where the attack vectors are. I blame the companies for being exploitable.
Why stop there, you could buy real shares, sell synthetic ones, and then sell the real shares, too. Or just sell synthetic shares without having any real shares in the first place. This seems like a case where a blockhain doesn't really do much good.
Selling the real shares as well as the synthetic is really just going naked short. Lots of risk/leverage. You have to put up collateral so that you have something to lose if it goes bad
I'm looking at it from the buyer's perspective. The big selling point of blockhain transactions is zero trust and no counterparty risk. There is clear counterparty risk in synthetic shares sold on a blockhain.
IOW, the buyer is still stuck relying on the issuer of the "real" shares to honour the blockhain sale, or on the seller not defaulting.
Edit: just to expound further on something I think most people miss: The primary innovation of Bitcoin was that it is provably scarce without relying on any legal framework. That's it, and it's pretty radical. If you start relying on the law to provide value, the blockhain idea tends to become extraneous.
The assumption that accreditation and education must be done by the same organization is absurd, really. Public schools evidently have the exact same incentives. The answer is that third parties should be evaluating education, not administration making up numbers and giving themselves a pat on the back for doing so well.
Of course, teaching to the test isn't ideal. But it looks like the alternative isn't a well-rounded education, but not teaching at all.
That sounds like a great way to indirectly punish parents who can't afford commutes for their children, since they get stuck with whichever schools the wealthier parents pull their children from.
The idea is that schools would compete for as many vouchers as they could, meaning they'd be willing to send buses out to your area, or find other ways to accommodate the parents with before school programs, ect.
If you think about it, this kind of culture actually hurts minorities because an employer will think twice about hiring them in the first place.
Why hire a black, hispanic, or LGBT person, if you have no ability to fire them without being labeled, canceled, or sued. Safer to just hire the white straight guy.
I just want to point out that there is no real evidence of this. Statistically, I'm sure it happened at least once, you can find one example of anything, but this phrase originates with a single anecdotal story from a single nurse.
There was no trend or array of stories. Just one lady who said she had someone denying it on their deathbed with zero corroboration, and then she got 2 days of news cycle.
There were random interviews in the capitol saying all these weird stuff from the internet, and people in US often know someone who'd be convinced this way.
So its not like this crazy stuff is hard to prove is prevalent (pun intended) among certain groups.
What is hard is actually putting figures on it when worldviews get so warped due to circular logic. This is bad, because there are real reasons people are upset. Underlying reasons that need to be properly addressed.
> Local mainstream “fact checkers” have even called Covid-19 a “right-wing conspiracy theory” in early 2020.
Would love a citation or two. I remember the right-wing administration saying it would disappear as if by magic and Fox News saying "0 deaths" and that playing up covid was a left wing invention at least up to april or so.
I don't know about this particular wording, but from my point of view here is what happened:
At first the loosely defined right-wing were panicking about the virus. Myself included, although I wasn't really panicking, just getting myself mentally prepared that this might possibly be the second black plague that could wipe out a similar percentage of the population. Meanwhile the loosely defined left-wing was ridiculing it, laughing about it, saying that there is no evidence that the virus is dangerous and calling people fearmongers and racists (?). And then everything switched. As it turned out, the virus wasn't as nearly dangerous as I initially though it'd be and the left-wing suddenly started acting like we're all going to die.
Fascinating how your PoV is so fundamentally different from mine, even when archive browsing the web a bit now.
Regarding:
> calling people fearmongers and racists (?)
I remember asian (or of asian descent) acquaintances being spit on and yelled at in the vein of "you're killing us!" on the subway for ostensibly looking Chinese (I'm guessing), at a time when the virus was already likelier to spread from other countries, and I'd say the more left leaning were pointing this out. People doing that don't reach that stage of racebased profiling independently without someone drumming up "chinavirus" as soon as it was no longer feasible to shrug it off. Is that maybe what you're referring to?
Yes, it really is fascinating how there are basically two entirely different worlds out there. But we're not in disagreement that the positions switched at some point, right?
I've seen people talking about the rise in anti-asian hate crimes and it being incorrectly blamed on white supremacy, but that happened somewhat recently. At the point in time we're talking about I haven't really heard about anything too much, although it's not hard to imagine it being the case. I think it's to be expected, what are you supposed to do about it? Should you ignore the actions of Israel, because it's associated with Jews? Or actions of Russian government, because someone could discriminate a Russian person over that? Or what happens in some Islamic country? And we're fine with talking about about "systemic white supremacy", so I find these concerns to be hypocritical frankly. I also don't believe that pretending like the virus didn't originate in China would help anything. People might be stupid, but they're smart enough to figure out that this is just BS.
> But we're not in disagreement that the positions switched at some point, right?
I think we are in disagreement. I don't remember such a switch, nor can identify one browsing backwards.
> I think it's to be expected, what are you supposed to do about it? Should you ignore the actions of Israel, because it's associated with Jews? Or actions of Russian government, because someone could discriminate a Russian person over that? Or what happens in some Islamic country?
I doubt everyone in Israel agrees with the decisions of the state of Israel, just as half of Americans don't agree with any current administration. Even further beyond that you shouldn't equate every jew with Israel, just as you shouldn't every muslim with Iran.
Talking about China as it relates to covid is fine. Calling it "chinavirus" (repeatedly) has no practical benefit, and is only used as a polemic.
> And we're fine with talking about about "systemic white supremacy", so I find these concerns to be hypocritical frankly.
I don't equate every white person with white supremacy, including myself. I don't see the hypocrisy.
> I think we are in disagreement. I don't remember such a switch, nor can identify one browsing backwards.
Well, I definitely remember left-leaning people ridiculing it when people were buying out the toilet paper, saying that there is no virus and stuff.
> I don't equate every white person with white supremacy, including myself. I don't see the hypocrisy.
And I don't equate every Chinese person with the virus or the Chinese government. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the criticism is that the narrative or the words you use, even if factually correct, might cause some people to have prejudice against the members of a certain group. You're (maybe not you specifically, I don't know) concerned about backlash against Chinese people over the virus, but you aren't concerned about the backlash against white people over systemic racism theory. That's what I find hypocritical.
But yeah, "china virus" might be a little bit over the top.
> Well, I definitely remember left-leaning people ridiculing it when people were buying out the toilet paper, saying that there is no virus and stuff.
I didn't even realize buying up toilet paper during early pandemics was partisan, but I definitely remember memes about how inconsiderate it is to buy up years worth of toilet paper at once, emptying the cache for everyone else with no indication that toilet paper manufacturing was affected. I admit I made fun of this too, but drew no political association to it. It had nothing to do with (the existence of) the virus.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the criticism is that the narrative or the words you use, even if factually correct, might cause some people to have prejudice against the members of a certain group.
Yeah, I guess, but I don't think there's any valid and accurate criticism that would lead anyone to blame random Chinese people.
> You're (maybe not you specifically, I don't know) concerned about backlash against Chinese people over the virus, but you aren't concerned about the backlash against white people over systemic racism theory. That's what I find hypocritical.
I haven't experienced any backlash against white people for any and all systemic racism built by other white people. I still do not see your point.
I don't think there really should be any political association to the virus in general, it just so happened that the issue divided itself along the partisan lines as usual. The buying out toilet paper was just to give you the time frame, that's when overall people were being ridiculed over concerns about the virus. Personal anecdote, one somewhat heavily left-leaning friend we know was insisting on a meeting and we got laughed at when we refused, because we were afraid of virus.
> I haven't experienced any backlash against white people for any and all systemic racism built by other white people. I still do not see your point.
And I'm really glad you didn't. Not every Chinese experienced any backlash either. That's great for them too. But not everyone was so fortunate. Example from a BLM protest: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ebji8
I don't know if that NPR article has been edited, but the only thing it's saying is that in january 2020 there was low risk of contracting covid compared to a regular flu, not that the virus was less dangerous, which at the time seems accurate.
From your vanityfair link:
> As Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and much of the GOP parroted the president’s no-worries line, MAGA originals like Steve Bannon and Mike Cernovich sounded the alarm.
I did notice the difference in Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity coverage, but you're right, there seems to have been a split within the grouping. Seeing as how many on the right are Trump loyalists (to a fault), that was the generalization I was drawing.
If you don't remember that, then you should question your information sources. I remember the accusations of racism online quite vividly as I voiced my concerns in early February that people should start taking precautions: buying quarantine supplies, PPE, etc.
Tucker Carlson had some early reports on COVID and was attacked for fear-mongering by his usual left-leaning political opponents.
This is Fauci (serving under Trump) saying in January 2020 that he didn't think it was a threat, or am I missing something?
Are you saying that a then Trump official, now Biden official was speaking out of partisanship?
> I remember the accusations of racism online quite vividly as I voiced my concerns in early February that people should start taking precautions: buying quarantine supplies, PPE, etc.
I stocked up on ~3-4 weeks worth of supplies too, and replenished bi-weekly since early february, as well as many of my friends, neither of whom politicised it.
> Tucker Carlson had some early reports on COVID and was attacked for fear-mongering by his usual left-leaning political opponents.
Conservative media has been and is almost exclusively doing the vocal delusional pandemic denial. You are completely right about this. The source claiming the right-wing conspiracy theory has been an outlier here.
There was an article from a popular outlet I've been particularly surprised about, since left-wing media otherwise mostly took the pandemic seriously here and around the world, and tried to stay science-based.
This article remained in my memory because they present themselves as fact checkers and are popular with many prominent people in my primary political and media spectrum.
This is from 27th January 2020, while many people here on HN likely have read the first concerning reports about this virus at the end of December 2019. I started being careful from mid January.
Until today this page self-righteously claims that "the available facts at that time" pointed towards nothing to be concerned about in the Western world, which is simple not true if you took your research seriously.
I mentioned that Men in Black scene. There were several other topics where I could find concerning evidence by carefully browsing otherwise questionable sources very early on – the lab leak theory (ProjectEvidence, Zerohedge), the aerosol transmission, that mask wearing is reasonable, the unclear and potentially harmful effects of the spike protein itself –, while I've been completely ignoring such websites before covid. ( Other things like people just dropping dead on Chinese streets did not turn out true ofc. )
> Rich people pay WAY more than what they get back from the gov.
Only if you ignore the role of the government in defining and enforcing (violently, where necessary) property rights, which is what allows “rich people” —particularly rich through various forms of intangible, indirect, and directly-physical-but-beyond-immediate-personal-supervision property — to, as such, even exist.
Rich people can extract value - i.e. park $1B into S&P500, and reap $40M in returns every year. How much work did they do to do the above? Zero (if they inherited 1B). How much are they taxed on it? 20 percent of $40M = $8M.
Where as someone who worked 40 hours a week for the whole year and made $200K gets taxed... exact same 20% effective (federal), and another ~15% (employer+employee) in FICA.
Part of the value of paying taxes is to ensure that the people who's labor you're extracting value from don't rebel and rise up against you.
You’re making up numbers. Nobody just gets a billy. Someone had to work very, very hard for that. That’s what libbies forget. Money isn’t given, it’s earned.
Rich people don't usually get handouts from the government, but they get something more valuable - a social order, enforced by the government, that allows them to be rich. Suppose you were rich, but you lived in a place where rich people tended to get kidnapped and held for ransom - being rich wouldn't be quite as good of a deal. The social order disproportionately benefits the rich, so they should pay more to keep it going.
We should also separate the concept of fairness from the reality of wealth in today's society. If a robot is doing the work which makes workers irrelevant, is that the fault of the workers? Should the productivity of the robot be taxed? (I believe it should - otherwise we are in a capitalist dystopia)
Counterpoint: they sell ~8 hours of their day. Selling that to the highest bidder ignores that there's different environments that might be better or worse for everyone's general sense of fulfilment. IMO, chasing highest pay only is a recipe for an unhappy life that only pays off on the short term.
No one should sell themselves short, but choosing, say, a 100% worse environment or a dead-end technology stack for a 5% higher pay (or whatever) is not wise.
Why? My job is extremely easy with a great team and manager. I could get more, but I'd have to work in a high stress environment, and life is too short for that shit.
I think the grandparent was implying all other things being equal. If the highest bidder requires that you work in significally different and more difficult conditions, then it's not really comparable.
The problem is evaluating the size of the bid. Salary is only one part of the equation and people rarely get wealthy on salary alone. There are multitude factors when evaluating the "bid" of the company and to actually understand what is valuable and what is not is the difficult part.
That content protocol is called HTTP and the service discovery protocol is called DNS. I know that it's a bit cliche to say that these days, but acquiring a domain name (either directly from a TLD registrar or indirectly through e.g. a DynDNS provider) and pointing it at a webhost is what allows content publishers to "mint" their very own globally unique URLs. Any consumers that are equipped with a suitable user agent can then plug that URL into their browser and view that publisher's content.
Now let's be serious, there are numerous barriers that stand in the way of "normal" users that want to escape the evil platforms. Why not direct our ire at the real problem: Why Johnny Still Can't Host a Website!
And if we fix that, perhaps we can move on to Why Johnny Can't Get Any Visitors (Because Google Won't Index It) and Why Johnny's Visitors Don't Receive His Updates (Because Google and Mozilla Killed RSS).
While I agree with you I think that most of the described effects do only exist because the way the internet works is centralized, and humans have to remember domains which they aren't very good at.
...otherwise the most googled term would not be facebook, just to click on the facebook.com link.
If there would be something like decentralized trackers (similar to the torrent architecture) you could have lots and lots of specialized communities that provide meta information about those websites and urls.
This would also allow different sources of traffic and updates if the discovery aspect of similar semantic content would be provided by something like a tagging system or a search field.
Humans don't have to remember domain names (and email addresses and URLs) because we have address books, contact lists, and bookmarks. We do have to recognize domains (and email addresses etc) when we see them, but that doesn't seem to present any issues in the real world.
Domains are absolutely everywhere in modern life: business cards, restaurant menus, outdoor advertising signage, and even in people's conversations with each other. People do, in general, understand how to use domain names.
Of course I do agree with your overall point that we need better protocols for content discovery, but I just don't think that domain names themselves are a stumbling block here.
You are basically describing IPFS. Content-based addressing instead of location-based addressing. Allowing content to be decoupled from any single hosting platform
1) Eth2 has been "coming soon" for a long time, so it will never happen. (Yes progress has been slow, but it's happening, with phase 0 live now.)
2a) In PoS, the rich get richer. (Not true in a meaningful sense. Staking rewards are neutral with respect to economic inequality, since everyone has access to the same rate of return.)
2b) PoS is a social issue. Climate change is also a social issue. Therefore, a PoS is a climate issue. (This is a converse error.)
