Yes, I am invested in crypto, and yes, I agree that crypto makes some forms of crime easier. There is no denying that, but I stand by my opinion regarding ransomware. Ransomware does not exist because of crypto, it's just the method of payment. If crypto goes away, then the method of payment will become more complicated, which in turn will likely make the ransoms higher, and the turn around times slower.
Intoxication with crypto makes people too blind to see the simple things in simple ways. They go hyper-technical and philosophical and forget the fact that crypto encourages and forms the basis for payments in ALL ransomware attacks in recent times. How hard is it to see that banning crypto would help reduce the crime?
Intoxication with crypto makes people too blind to see the simple things in simple ways. They go hyper-technical and philosophical and forget the fact that crypto encourages and forms the basis for payments in ALL ransomware attacks in recent times. How hard is it to see that banning crypto would help reduce the crime?
How do you "ban" crypto? Even if you think it's evil and doesn't have any useful applications that "pandora's box" has been opened and can't be closed anymore.
Very important question. I believe information is a percievable or measurable difference in states of a thing at two different time instants or difference in states of two things. A state of a thing exists only because it can be distinguished from another state; that is, the state exists only because it can encode information relative to another state.
How fast information can travel? Just as fast as one can distinguish one state from another. This assumes that there exists an agent capable of distinguishing between the states. How fast can this be done? It doesn't start at one state and end at another state. It is instantaneous recognition of the difference. The information is created just when the difference in states is recognized. There is no start or end. It is an event. Events do not have speed.
I completely agree with the author. When writing Java code, you get a sense of standing on a bed rock that never lets you down. You can be assured that you get everything you need. It is like a childhood friend or relative who always stands besides you and supports you. I don't get that sense when using any other languages though I have been using them for same number of years. The other languages sometimes annoy me by misguiding me or by being poor in some aspects, but never such case with Java. I have total respect to this language and I go to it whenever these more hyped languages give me a chance to do so.
All of the tech mentioned are broadly in the same domain - connecting people together or connecting people with information. This domain has saturated now. In fact there are no more niche areas untouched. All innovation now is about quality and economy. It just boils down to biggest bang for the buck.
Forget UX, the image search itself _doesn't_ work. Search for some known person's name. 90% of the image results will be from the side bars on LinkedIn page of that person, which have no relation to the search key words.
Wouldn't that be LinkedIn's fault for (presumably) not marking the sidebar as "not SEO content"? A few other websites have been destroying my searches this way.
By the way, light has no speed. Light is not a "thing" that "moves" through space, even if it is a particle. Source and target of light incidence simply exchange their excitations through entanglement, symmetrically. There is no direction of movement. And there is no movement.
I believe you're right. While I'm not a physicist by profession, I took enough high level physics to be dangerous. The way I interpret lorentz contraction and time dilation, there will always be a possible observer for which the photon does not need to exist because the interacting particles collided.
This is in much the same way that there is always a possible observer that sees only electrical interactions when magnetic fields are involved for other observers.
I haven't read this somewhere. I was just consolidating my thoughts through reasoning. The first abnormality I observed was light propagation having a direction that is asymmetric between source and target. There is no room for that asymmetry. Next is, assumption that time, space and causality exist independent of light, and movement of light being described in terms of those concepts. This can't be true, because all these (light, time, space, change, causality, direction etc) only have mutual existence but not independent or absolute existence. So, light can't be described in terms of others as if others already exist. For more discussion, you can ping me at vrpbkp_at_gmail.
