EOS tried to use on-chain Ricardian Contracts and pair that with upgradeable smart contracts in C++ with DPoS consensus so that intent-of-code could be enforced. That's pretty "real world" but most people feel it's not unstoppable enough.
Ethereum is pretty unstoppable, but unless you use a contract proxy, your contracts are immutable and bugs that can be exploited will be exploited.
Pokemon will enter the NFT digital collectibles space, and it would be absolute crazy if they don't already have a team working on it.
All of these collectors are making assumptions based on information other collectors have shared about "how many are known to exist" etc., whereas NFTs are provably scarce and they never get scuffed up.
It's highly unlikely that The Pokemon Company would want it to be publicly known how many of each card are in existence, and even then they'd likely prefer hosting this on their own self-hosted and fully controlled database over a blockchain.
Transaction fees for the Topps MLB cards on WAX, for example, are only taken during the sale when the sale occurs on a secondary Atomic Asset marketplace. There are no royalties to trade or transfer between accounts.
Our small team spends roughly $40-50k/mo at AWS. If you're just hosting a website with a SQL database (glorified LAMP stack), you're probably in it for the wrong reasons. Stick to a dedicated box or DigitalOcean etc.
AWS is like co-locating your hardware, and then the data center having 1000s of employees offering highly reliable services you can access from your infrastructure that lets you move WAY faster for things that are hard to do.
e.g. Discussion today was increasing log retention. 10 years ago I would have run the numbers, extended some SAN volumes, considered procuring more NetApp shelves, etc.
Today it's simply a cost question: is it worth it to us to store those logs for 10x longer? Sure? Ok, done.
I think the point that you're making here is subtle and that people are missing it.
Your small team can _comfortably manage_ 50k/mo worth of AWS resources. That's _INCREDIBLE_.
I think people mistakenly think that cloud costs only go up exponentially and that costs are an unmanageable mess.
I've worked with teams with hundreds of engineers serving a major enterprise and only an AWS bill 3-5x yours. And they only had a small team managing it all. Comfortably.
To do similar with physical servers requires a massive stack of people and salaries. The ongoing recruiting costs to maintain staffing would dwarf what the AWS bill is.
> To do similar with physical servers requires a massive stack of people and salaries. The ongoing recruiting costs to maintain staffing would dwarf what the AWS bill is.
No no they wouldn't. Number of people is equal for both, its just different tasks they have to do.
As we head into the post-truth era, we already know videos are going to become far less trusted due to deep fake tech. Finding grains of truth through cryptography, like DKIM, is so refreshing that it hurts to think some people want to cripple it.
The Hunter Biden email is a good example.
I initially thought it was a garbage tabloid drop, but once I read Rob Graham's analysis, it felt very refreshing to have a real nugget of truth based on math. While the context of that content is up for debate, the truth was essentially undeniable (unless you subscribe to the 2016 private key being stolen).
The Hunter Biden email is a terrible example. It's very likely that what's been found on "Hunter Biden's" laptop is just hacked material which has been stuffed on a laptop to disguise the original source of the breach. In this case the DKIM signatures are being used to lend credibility to the story that the laptop was mysteriously left in repair shop, never to be reclaimed.
DKIM is not meant to validate conversations, it's meant to validate single messages for the purposes of spam prevention. Just because I can cryptographically validate selectively chosen messages from someone's mailbox, I don't have any proof that the conversation happened as presented.
There's a good reason why eliminating non-repudiation has been a goal of messaging protocols since OTR in 2004.
It's not farfetched to believe a crack-addicted wealthy individual who seemed to live a very "promiscuous" lifestyle, would have forgotten some cheap laptop at a repair shop. These people are humans, at the end of the day.
Yes, it is far-fetched given that the story doesn't add up. Also, cocaine isn't known to cause people to suddenly become poor thinkers. I've seen this narrative pushed multiple times that somehow him doing cocaine made him fly across country and drop off his laptop to a blind computer repair shop owner and leave it there with sensitive information on it which was verified by a blind man with his signature, which was then turned over to Rudy Gulliani because he was concerned about the material.
They did. The plastics industry sinked millions in campaigns to convince the people plastics are reclyclable. The only thing missing from being a true Musk move is that they came up with it themselves, instead of buying off the idea from someone else.
Executed is not a synonym of "bought". And arguably, none of them is revolucionary. With a cool $1bn in the bank, you bet I could do better, such as investing in tech that solves real problems instead of 3rd cathegory sci-fi adaptations.
That would be considered "mala fides" and the court would likely hold the officers/directors liable for the loan amount. Also, prior to filing for bankruptcy any attorney worth his spit will advise his client to fully repay or continue paying obligations to the US government. US government-backed loans are very difficult to completely discharge in a bankruptcy.
perhaps it encoded in the PPP law, but I wonder if this could be sidetracked by bookeeping, using PPP money to pay people, and investing that money you would have used toward R&D or something.
It is, yes. If you keep the same headcount and use at least 60% of it for payroll (not exactly clear how you prove that since money is fungible), it is essentially a stimulus check
It shouldn't be too hard to prove. Every time a company writes a payroll check the government knows exactly how much it was for and who got it. Seems like simple math.
Yes, but an entirely different branch of government is who knows about it. Don't overestimate the ability of two disparate departments of an extremely large organization to communicate with one another.
I don't frequent /r/wsb, but the onus should not be on the SEC to clamp down on a community, it should be on the service the "significant young people" are using to execute satirical investment advice.
For example, if Robinhood wants to gamify everything, then advanced trading opportunities should be part of some built-in experience-based level up system. E.g. you can't trade options until you have made X classic trades, or after you've completed X days of simulated advanced trading.
> advanced trading opportunities should be part of some built-in experience-based level up system
It already is a thing on all brokerages, including RH. If you go into your portfolio in the app, there are different option trading levels (which is standardized across the industry), and you can get upgraded to the next level as you do trades over time. You cannot just jump to level 3 as soon as you install the app. While I cannot comment on how their algorithms for upgrade eligibility work, it already exists in the same shape and form as on all other brokerage services.
