Because people unfailingly pushback against it. The pushers should start their push acknowledging that it is possible if it’s really such an elementary claim to them.
Every time Facebook has stepped in to "fix" something they have been criticized by one side or another. They have learned that it's safer for them to do nothing and then blame the algorithm when enough people complain. No one gets fired when the algorithm does something wrong.
That BBC quote is a bit misleading. The photo on the left is what the painting looked like before restoration, not what it looked like when it was originally painted. Parts of it had been damaged and repainted over multiple times in the past which is why the restored version looks so different.
Bearing in mind here, that Christie's had a vested interest in the painting selling for as high as an amount as possible. So interesting this may be, it's hardly unbiased.
Towelliee (Garcia) has been streaming on Twitch since the start. He's not the most popular streamer by far but is one of the few still streaming from back then. It will be interesting to see if newer more popular streamers like Dr. Disrespect can maintain their viewership.
> As part of his plea, Bridges agreed to turn over the stolen bitcoin to U.S. agents.
He likely got less time for agreeing to turn over his private key. That might have been a bad decision depending on how many years he would have gotten otherwise. Those 1,600 bitcoin are worth over $10 million at the moment.
Surely, that can't be how it works though, can it? If he refused to release the key and got say 10 years of prison, he wouldn't be free to spend them after getting out of prison - after all, they are still considered stolen property. Serving the prison sentence wouldn't magically make them his.
Ok, so just for example - if I steal your car, hide it so no one can find it, go to prison for a year or two, get out.....the car is mine? Or a phone, or money, or pretty much literally anything else? A stolen property remains stolen until it's returned to its owner, it doesn't transfer ownership just because the thief served time.
The judge will almost certainly order the return of the car (or a cash restitution) as part of the sentencing. If you don't return the car or don't pay the restitution you are in contempt of court.
More so, "possession of stolen property" is also a crime. The car doesn't magically become unstolen just because the theft went to jail.
This has absolutely nothing to do with civil forfeiture.
Civil forfeiture is when the getaway car is seized when you are robbing a bank.
Restitution is when you are ordered by a court to repay the victim for their losses that your criminal behavior caused. This case involved restitution, if he didn't comply with giving up the private keys he would be ordered to pay restitution.
No, but if he managed to get the coins into an offline wallet he could in theory move to Cambodia, cash out his coins and live the rest of his life in exile.
Or if he was careful about it he could tumble his coins, and then withdraw a small amount of cash every month or so for the rest of his life while still living in the US.
Nah, it was in his best interest to turn over the private keys. You also don't get less time for turning over stolen property, you are ordered by the court do that no matter what.
If he said "I lost the private key," he would have been ordered to pay restitution in cash. That means his assets (including his house) would be seized, when he gets out of jail his wages would be garnished forever, any inheritance he ever tried to claim would be seized, if he won the lottery that would be seized, his tax returns would be seized, etc. He would never be allowed to build any wealth at all until that restitution was paid, and it never would be because who makes enough money in their lifetime to pay a $10M restitution?
The coins are now completely worthless to him because those addresses will be watched forever, if any coins ever moved from that wallet, he would automatically go to jail. $10 million you can never spend or give away is not useful.
The fact that Uber hasn't suffered any noticeable loss of business suggests that this is false. Or at least that it doesn't matter if people love you or not.
You don't have to be loved to be profitable. That said Uber is currently neither, nor is it likely to be any time soon.
But my point is that Uber's reputation plumbing the abyssal depths, and to a lesser extent AirBnB's, is dragging down the reputation of the rest of the valley.
Back then it was the passed down wisdom and morals of the elders that guided society. Now it's a bunch of 20- and 30-somethings who haven't experienced enough to develop morals, let alone wisdom. But that's OK, because they've farmed it out to an algorithm. And when that fails, they shrug their shoulders and declare themselves blameless for the damage they've done.
The public cries out because of the way its treated by Facebook. There's a simple solution: stop hiring children. Or at least stop putting them in positions of power.
It's a mistake for FB users to consider themselves employers who have any effect on hiring. That's like a pig with an opinion about work habits at the slaughterhouse.
Because there is no licensing issue because this project hasn't been released. This blog post is a preannouncement. When it's released and its known what license it uses then it will become a pertinent discussion.
That line of reasoning could be applied to pretty much every single comment in this thread. Literally. Pick any comment and you could simply respond with: "Well it's not released yet so it's not pertinent".
The very fact that the announcement includes "the ultimate goal of contributing it to the open source community later in 2017" makes the licensing issue pertinent, particularly given Facebook's licensing history.
That it's such an elementary claim is the reason for the pushback. What's the point in saying something obvious?