In a scenario where you have a powerful enough quantum computer and are able to break the encryption you can access any wallet (I.e. the system would be done, and the value would be zero).
It's a dumb analysis of the situation that ignores what would actually happen:
A new wallet cert would be created that uses more bits. Enough that a brute force even with a quantum CPU would take too long. Then you transfer the funds to the new wallet. Abandoned wallets might be claimed during this transition but overall the deflationary trend of btc won't really be effected long term.
I think having Trump whisper in your ear before the next Truth Social post is the least effort way to win at Crypto. Inventing a viable quantum computer seems like way too much effort for the bros.
I'm surprised this isn't a bigger concern given that:
For over a year now we've been at the point whereby a video of anyone saying or doing anything can be generated by anyone and put on the Internet, and it's only becoming more convincing (and rapidly)
We've been living in a post-truth world for almost ten years, so it's now become normalized
Almost half of the population has been conditioned to believe anything that supports their political alignment
People will actually believe incredibly far-fetched things, and when the original video has been debunked, will still hold the belief because by that point the Internet has filled up with more garbage to support something they really want to believe
Absolutely! And don’t kid yourself into thinking you are immune from this either. You can find support of basically anything you want to believe. And your friendly LLM will be more than happy to confirm it too!
Honestly it goes right back to philosophy and what truth even means. Is there even such a thing?
People forget that critical thinking means thinking critically about everything, even things you already think are true because they fit into your worldview.
> Honestly it goes right back to philosophy and what truth even means. Is there even such a thing?
Truth absolutely is a thing. But sometimes, it's nuanced, and people don't like nuance. They want something they can say in a 280-character tweet that they can use to "destroy" someone online.
Surprisingly few ER docs anywhere in the world have even a rudimentary understanding of the risks of CT scanning patients. There's a lot of information around about this, but my own first hand (anecdotal) experience is that I've had ER docs try to convince me that it's basically the same as an X-Ray and act like I'm a crazy person when I explain that it's orders of magnitude higher and cumulative over a lifetime. On one hand, it's not their job to care about your long term health - they need to rule out an emergency and get you out the door as quickly as possible - but it's very concerning.
It's a bit like how general practitioners aren't taught about nutrition at all, so give out really poor advice for heart disease patients (the leading cause of mortality in Western economies).
Edit: For comparison, a chest X-ray is around 0.1mSv, a chest CT at 6.1mSv, so a factor of 61 between (https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info/safety-xray ). Compared to natural exposure (usually 1 to 3mSv/a) however, a chest CT isn't that bad at 2 to 3 years natural dose, 2 polar flights or 1 year of living at higher altitude or Ramsar (https://aerb.gov.in/images/PDF/image/34086353.pdf ). Acute one-time dose damage has been shown above 100mSv, below that there is no damage shown, only statistical extrapolations.
So I'd say that the risk of using a CT right away should be lower than the risk of overlooking a bleed or a clot in an emergency, where time is of the essence and the dance of "let's do an X-ray first..." might kill more patients than the cancers caused by those CTs.
> On one hand, it's not their job to care about your long term health - they need to rule out an emergency and get you out the door as quickly as possible - but it's very concerning.
Yeah, but what's the alternative when you have a stroke? They need to understand it's type and the mistake here is likely to be fatal since they require opposite treatments.
Isn't it still a PITA to charge for more than half of the population ?
Most of EU cities have the same issues. Due to appartment density an EV makes sense only if you own your house, run a cable from your flat to the street, or win the charging lottery and/or fight for a spot at some shared location.
Alternatively you can make it a routine to charge at a public spot while you go shopping, but it means you're double annoyed when it doesn't work out for whatever reason (spots already taken etc)
Me neither. My fuel costs went from £1000 a year to £100. And I don't even do that many miles. Why isn't everyone jumping on this? Meanwhile a lot of moaning about the "cost of living crisis". People are strange.
Electric and internal combustion cars do not cost the same though. Even a plug-in hybrid which only has ~50mi range before the ICE turns on was a +$8k feature (in practice, $10k - $12k after dealer shenanigans and taxes) when I last bought a car. I'd have to drive 8+ years without ever using a drop of gasoline for that to make sense, by your numbers. A full EV was $20k - $30k more than similar ICE models.
That's in the US where we have a bunch of tariffs to protect the local auto industry.
In the UK, you can get really cheap EVs because the china ev and battery market is open to them and their importers.
Further, because of the nature of both public transport and the city layout of the UK, there's much less of a need for long range EVs. Almost everything there is both walkable and within walking distance. It's very unlike the US.
I survived in the UK for 2 years on foot. It was really not that bad.
The Hyundai Kona Electric starts at £32,400. Which is ~$43,500 freedom bucks.
But there's very little reason why the majority of brits couldn't survive with the Dogood Zero which starts at £5,500 (and has a 50 mile range).
Those comparisons were from the same manufacturer, so tariffs should be similar.
I ended up going with the RAV4. I just looked and the gas powered RAV4 is $29k, while the plug in hybrid model (toyota doesn’t do full EV) is $45k, so there is still a very big difference in price.
Plug-in RAV4, aka the Prime? I haven't looked in a while, but when we were shopping last we took a look at those and the price was insane. There was no reason to get it over the hybrid unless you wanted the extra horsepower.
Welcome to the EV market, where cars cost twice what they should because choosing to buy an EV is a status and conscientious choice rather than economic.
> Electric and internal combustion cars do not cost the same though.
They do in other (non-US) markets, without subsidies.
PHEVs are a bad deal, always were. Only make sense if there's subsidies or tax advantages for buying them over pure combustion cars (unfortunately a thing in some markets). Most PHEVs are never charged and PHEV batteries are roughly 4x more expensive per kWh than EV batteries, so there is no cost benefit in the electric drivetrain.
I don't think I could understand not getting an EV in the UK. Everything is so close together and public transit is really good. You can practically survive in even the most remote regions with just a bike alone.
Not really convinced the logic is right here. If the battery dies there’s still options before replacing it with a new one from the manufacturer at retail price.
Even then, batteries in EVs don’t have a 100% failure rate. There are still many 15 year old Leafs driving around on the original battery, and I’m not sure the out-and-out failures (I.e. not including gradual capacity loss) are a high number either.
Modern EVs (2016-present) have even lower failure rates again (below 1% within 200k miles including those replaced due to capacity loss)
I love my Chevy Volt. But I can't recommend a $5k volt to any of my friends wanting a cheap car. Because when you buy a $5k Toyota, it's basically never a random sensor glitch away from costing you $5k+ even at an independent. But volts are inside their battery pack.
It also doesn't require the same person to be using the car.
Someone has a 90 mile round trip commute and buys a car with a 120 mile range. Having it drop below 90 miles after a decade isn't working for them anymore, so they sell it. Works fine for someone with a 30 mile commute.
Being new to Datastar and having seen some of the hype recently, I'm really not sold on it.
The patch statements on the server injecting HTML seems absolutely awful in terms of separation of concerns, and it would undoubtedly be an unwieldy nightmare on an application of any size when more HTML is being injected from the server.
The eternal pattern of the industry is that a automanufacturer has negative interest in remaining interested in an infotainment system in a car they sold several years ago and retrofit makers provide less specifically integrated systems that win overall because developments in everything else amounts to more than the integration.
You can use almost any app, not just apps that Tesla have deemed worthy (or removed due to childish feuds, like Disney+). Podcast apps, music streaming apps, etc...
IIRC Tesla has Disney+ too, an if it doesn't, you have a Chromium browser. Of course you can't use it while driving, but passengers on the back sit should be able to use the streaming services even when the car is moving.
For podcast apps, IIRC Apple Music and for sure Spotify are supported. Still not convinced that Android Auto / CarPlay is superior, sorry.
Even if Disney+ has been restored for everyone (I don't know if it has), any app could be removed by a manchild for any reason and that's unacceptable: https://apple.news/A8If_BNgyS-mqPcq25GK-Rw
I use neither Apple Music nor Spotify and I'm not alone.
Well I have some audiobooks downloaded to my phone. The progress is saved on my phone, and because they're downloaded I don't need cell service to listen to them. I just did a 3000 km road trip with intermittent cell service, using an app on my phone via Android Auto to play my audiobook files, and was able to easily transition to hotel rooms with speakers, and different vehicles, and continue the books where they'd been paused.
When I plug in my iPhone, the Maps is integrated with my Calendar. For example if my Calendar entries have a Location, I can simply tap on it to navigate there.
It's not, it's just superior to what Nissan had before integrating apple carplay/android auto. It's so much nicer being able to interact with both my actual car and my phone through the screen, instead of just playing with my phone on a larger screen.
Oh yes, I'm sure it's far superior than most, if not all, standard car infotainment systems (that are known to be laggy and their UIs look like they've been built in 2008).
At least CarPlay is pretty disappointing compared to Tesla's native functionality. The "apps" are all very trivial, mostly reduced to playback control or simple selections.
Not a Tesla owner, but I've driven it enough to appreciate.
Just one point of view- but I have used both a decent amount and I drastically prefer CarPlay.
The native apps are … fine?
Again, it’s just my particular perspective, but I really appreciate that any CarPlay vehicle has the exact apps that I set up on my phone, already configured, etc.
There’s nothing Tesla could ever really do to compete with the convenience of already having all of my accounts set up and already having exactly the apps installed that I know I want.
CarPlay and Android Auto are an insurance policy against any kind of inferior infotainment experience your automaker might provide.
If I’m buying a car I need to know that it’ll meet my needs for 10 years or longer.
If a car has CarPlay/Android Auto I know that my infotainment will evolve with the times and that nothing my automaker does can negatively impact my experience. A new phone will resolve any performance or functionality complaints I have with the system.
For one thing, I’ll point out that many Tesla (or GM) features depend on premium connectivity packages where I’m buying a cellular data package twice for no reason.
For another thing, I’ll point out that smartphone operating systems have a much better privacy policy than car operating systems.
I would much rather my car have a “dumb” CarPlay capable screen than a full blown cellular data-enabled operating system that’s tracking me and sending information to my insurance company.
And let’s not forget that CarPlay/Android Auto can integrate so much better with your life on your phone than a system like Tesla, including texts and calls including alternative calling systems like Signal, Zoom, etc. List out every Spotify competitor and see if they have a Tesla native app or not, because a lot of them don’t or only got one recently (like YouTube music).
If we want some non-scientific evidence for how much consumers want CarPlay, just look at how the Honda Prologue is outselling the Chevy Equinox EV despite being essentially the same car.
> At least CarPlay is pretty disappointing compared to Tesla's native functionality. The "apps" are all very trivial, mostly reduced to playback control or simple selections.
Huh? What Tesla phone integrations would you characterize differently than "playback control or simple selections"? And what makes them moreso?
Very mixed feelings about this as there’s a strong case for the decisions made here but it also moves .NET further away from WASMGC, which makes using it in the client a complete non-starter for whole categories of web apps.
It’s a missed opportunity and I can’t help but feel that if the .NET team had gotten more involved in the proposals early on then C# in the browser could have been much more viable.
Those changes affect the .NET runtime, designed for real computers. This does not preclude the existence of a special runtime designed for Wasm with WasmGC support.
The .NET team appears to be aware of WasmGC [0], and they have provided their remarks when WasmGC was being designed [1].
.NET was already incompatible with WASM GC from the start [1]. The changes in .NET 10 are nothing in comparison to those. AFAIK WASM GC was designed with only JavaScript in mind so that's what everyone is stuck with.
1: JavaScript _interoperability_ , ie same heap but incompatible objects (nobody is doing static JS)
2: Java, Schemes and many other GC derived languages ,etc have more "pure" GC models, C# traded some of it for practicality and that would've required some complications to the regular JS GC's.
A lot of the features here, stuff like escape analysis for methods etc. does not directly involve the GC - it reduces the amount of objects that go to the GC heap so the GC has less work to do in the first place.
How would this move .NET further away from WASMGC? This is a new GC for .NET, but doesn't add new things to the language that would make it harder to use WASMGC (nor easier).
For example, .NET has internal pointers which WASMGC's MVP can't handle. This doesn't change that so it's still a barrier to using WASMGC. At the same time, it isn't adding new language requirements that WASMGC doesn't handle - the changes are to the default GC system in .NET.
I agree it's disappointing that the .NET team wasn't able to get WASMGC's MVP to support what .NET needs. However, this change doesn't move .NET further away from WASMGC.
Don't mix mainstream adoption at the same level as regular JavaScrip and Typescript, with availability.
Microsoft would wish Blazor would take off like React and Angular, in reality it is seldom used outside .NET shops intranets in a way similar to WebForms.
I wouldn't be surprised if it did take off, classic Wasm semantics were horrible since you needed a lot of language support to even have simple cludges when referring to DOM objects via indices and extra lifeness checking.
WASM-GC will remove a lot of those and make quite a few languages possible as almost first-class DOM manipulating languages (there's still be cludges as the objects are opaque but they'll be far less bad since they can at least avoid external ID mappings and dual-GC systems that'll behave leakily like old IE ref-counts did).
You still need to usually install plenty of moving pieces to produce a wasm file out of the "place language here", write boilerplate initialisation code, debugging is miserable, only for a few folks to avoid writing JavaScript.
There will always be enthusiasts to take the initial steps, the question is if they have the taste to make it a coherent system that isn't horrible to use.
Counted out over N languages, we should see something decent land before long.
The author needn't regret not publishing this two years ago, it's a thought that had occurred to pretty much everyone long before then. It's just not clear that anything can be done to stop the snowball from gathering speed.
Meanwhile, I do a lot of photography and haven't posted anything in the past 2 years on Instagram because the AI garbage and influencer garbage now gets more attention than real photos of places on Earth you can actually go to. It feels not worth my time to post anything, considering how much effort it takes to post, time posts, and find hashtag soup, because if you don't do all of that, the platform doesn't show your images to people anyway.
switch to another platform? flickr? 500px? Or did you just want the likes? I still post a curated set of my photos to flickr. All CC licensed FWIW. There's no AI/influencer stuff there.
Nobody I know looks at those platforms. 500px is filled with bots, Flickr is unknown to people under 30. If humans don't look at it, it's not worth my time either.
I want a platform that real humans, including some sizeable chunk of my social circle, look at, and is filled with real content.
Agreed, once Instagram started favoring reels/video, I stopped posting my photography there.
Ive been looking at using Photo.glass, but the subscription cost puts me off a bit emotionally after having been told to believe that 'social media is free' from the tech oligarchs. Logically though, I know that it theoretically attracts a higher bar of photographers who are willing to pay entry/support a new form of ad-free internet through that subscription - Similar to the idea of paid search engines.
I only just realized that the site is actually https://glass.photo/, not photo.glass. I can't edit the comment now, but the suggested domain in the original comment leads to some spam site. Don't recommend visiting it
I think it’s more that there’s no will to do anything about it. As a piece earlier this week pointed out nothing about tech is genuinely inevitable[0]. There are humans making decisions to keep the snowball gathering speed.
This reminds me of when everyone was saying that "everything on the internet is written in ink" - especially during the height of social media in the 2010s. So imagine my surprise in the first half of the 2020s when tons of content starts getting effectively deleted from the internet - either through actual deletion or things like link rot. Heck, I literally just said "the height of social media" - even that has pulled back.
So yeah, remember that tech ultimately serves people. And it only happens so long as people are willing to enable it to happen.
I suspect almost all of that data still exists - it just isn’t readily available.
In the desperate end-game of this most recent round of “it’s shit, but what if we collected enough of it?” every last bit of human generated content will be resurrected.
That’s a fair point. But I’ve learned from my own life experience to factor in things like Hanlon’s Razor and the Dunning-Kruger Effect when it comes to technology anymore. Especially post-Covid tech.
In this case, while it’s totally possible for this sort of data to still exist somewhere, I think the chances of it surfacing again in any accessible format are rare - purely because of the overall stupidity of the system. Keeping data that “alive” for decades is a skill in itself that seems to only happen in a heavily subsidized “perfect” economic times (at least to the outside observer). Once the going gets tough, there isn’t really any business value to saving the data and it likely gets deleted.
We had more than half a century of for example sci-fi literature describing that future, and over all those decades nobody was able to come up with even half-good plausible/feasible idea of how to deal with that. That suggests that it is outside of human intelligence capabilities to stop that snowball. Personally, i read a lot of sci-fi in my youth and i'm prepared to accept such my/our fate, even happily working where i can to speed it up (the faster the changes, the faster the human evolution (or at least adaptation) and what can be more exciting than that).
Current humans can't even deal with very simple and obvious issue of global warming. Thus it seems very unreasonable to expect any effective dealing with significantly more complex issues. And thus if not evolution then at least very accelerated adaptation is in order.
While I agree I do think this way of looking at things is kind of insightful. I hadn't thought of it this way and it really rings true:
> I find my fear to be kind of an ironic twist on what the Matrix foresaw—the AI apocalypse we really should be worried about is one in which humans live in the real world, but with thoughts and feelings generated solely by machines. The images we see, the words we read, all generated with the intent to control us. With improved VR, the next step (out of the real world) doesn’t seem very far away, either.
Yes, as far as I can tell infinite scroll + 2010s era social media recommendation algorithms alone have already decimated the wider human collective's ability to think for themselves, and has subsequently eroded sane discourse and democratic norms in societies all across the globe.
I don't know much about him, but he does lots of stuff about bringing water to places in Africa and curing blindness or deafness as well from what I've seen. Not sure of the ratio of what to what.
This is not how you judge character. Character is what you do when you have nothing to gain or even something to lose. These are merely performances for YouTube videos that help his brand and generate millions of views. Adults at least should be aware of this, because this is how you get scammed.
OP never used the word "character." They asked about good deeds, which appears to be about the action, whereas character is about the intention of the person. If MrBeast cured your blindness and he did it solely to make money and doesn't care about you at all, you still got your blindness cured. If I volunteer at the soup kitchen just to meet women, I have failing character but I still did the good deed. This is the MrBeast dilemma: what are we to conclude when the two are in opposition? What does it mean when someone does a good deed in order to benefit from it themselves? Is that a win-win situation, or is it bad? Does it completely negate the good deed? These are generally unsettled questions in our culture.
Based on the context they were obviously judging their character based off their "good deeds". You are just circling around the obvious. As for this "dilemma", he has already shown he will exploit children.
This tells you who he is and what his incentives are. If you would like to believe otherwise go for it. My advice simply is to watch out in real life for people you think are good if this is how you judge people.
His philantrophy videos underperform compared to his other videos, typically getting 10-30% fewer views than the worst performing video right before or after.
Maybe you could argue that they aren't financially lucrative but at least help his brand. But he seems to get a lot of hate for making those videos. I suspect his brand would be much better if he stuck to making highly produced challenge and contest style videos
Now there are three worlds we could live in: In the first I am misjudging his videos and they are actually good for his brand or finances. That's the one you suspect. In the second they are bad for his brand but he perceives them as helping him. Quite possible, even if he seems to have reasonably good self reflection. In the third they are bad for his brand and finances but he wouldn't be able to finance projects of this scopes without the videos and sponsorships. That's what MrBeast claims to be true
I don't know which of those is true, all three of them seem likely to me
>His philantrophy videos underperform compared to his other videos, typically getting 10-30% fewer views than the worst performing video right before or after.
Doesn't matter. We are literally having this discussion because of the very fact that he has chosen to make these videos. This tells you how effective it is for his brand. More than likely it is a net-positive even if he does get criticism.
We wouldn't be in our current political situation if adults were aware of this. The average person is well below what we usually assume the average is.
Whatever he does is for show first and foremost and only. Whatever benefits other people gain in the process is always less than what he will gain from the views. It's very much not a charity although he sells it like one.
There is a way to give money and stuff away for good causes and it's not to put up a show, then pack up and never return to see check that what you did actually helped. What he's doing is a lottery, making poor people win to capture their immediate sentiments. It's totally artificial and done for the wrong reasons which can have a number of negative outcomes that you'll never hear about because it's a closed process. Would you consider lotto a charity?
I'm sorry for the previous rambling. The word I was looking for is Exploitation. That's what it is. Making a show about poor people while it gets you rich as F. It's just wrong.
This was his older content. Ever since his squid game video his videos are larger-than-life with elaborate sets, flying to crazy destinations, etc. The simple giving cars away, or giving a house to a pizza delivery guy, or reading the bee moving script is long over.
One point about giving away cars - it’s not always to someone else’s detriment. He once gave someone ~30 used cars and they had to give them all away (to friends, family, randoms) within 24hours to earn a Tesla for himself.
In a weird way he is turning into the squid game villain himself. He stole their look for his henchmen and also takes on the persona. Almost every video he has made since would fit right in that world.
In a scenario where you have a powerful enough quantum computer and are able to break the encryption you can access any wallet (I.e. the system would be done, and the value would be zero).
reply