> It’s different for the mega wealthy (which is the primary problem).
It's a feature of reality. That's why all this chatter about taking billionaires down a peg or two is ultimately fruitless. All you're doing is aiding someone else's power play -- who will then have the excess privilege and power that rankles the masses. But there is nothing to be done, it has always been that way, and always will. Those who think communism or any other governmental structure actually solves this problem, is deluded; it just transfers the power somewhere else. Putin is richer than Bill Gates.
For anyone who is trying to decipher the clunky title, it means "Unlocking vehicles from a major manufacturer, across the globe" The manufacturer is not disclosed.
Proper clickbait titles are more like “You wouldn’t believe the car brand we were able to unlock!” And when you click through, the article tells you. What advanced form of clickbait is this where the authors doesn’t even disclose the most important part of the story? Why is he protecting the car company by redacting the brand through the entire article?
I didn't find this hard to read or understand, though perhaps his writing style just aligns with my own and I do have experience in the methods being used.
I think it's because it critically was missing context. So you're constantly trying to frame and reconcile it while reading. When first reading I thought there was actually a car brand named X -- and it doesn't seem out of the question.
But it makes the content seem awkward and clunky. So a reader going in with the correct context has a very different experience.
What a ludicrous complaint. It's perfectly readable. What possible motivation does one have to broadly proclaim something is "badly" done from an armchair without a modicum of justification? And then follow it up with an AI-whine. It's roiling to me.
Someone posted an AI picture on Twitter, that was done in the style of a great classic painter of renown. Everyone tore it apart, discussing all the details that betrayed it as a pale imitation of the original. It was roundly panned as an example of how AI will never be good enough to replace humans. After this went on for some time, the initial poster revealed it wasn't actually AI at all, it was a genuine original from the artist in question.
People just hate AI and will find a post hoc justification for their hatred in every situation. The link you gave could have just as easily been someone expressing surprise and delight at the artists choice to not follow traditional physics... but instead be playful in unconstrained ways. Shrug.
Artists aren't machines that churn out one masterpiece after another, they do create bad works (most artists would acknowledge that) and there are one hit wonders. I look at a lot of art and sometimes I like only one painting out of a series, or even out of a lifetime of work. Also, you often need the context of the artist's broader work to judge the quality of a single piece, which might otherwise appear like a bad picture in vacuum.
that kind of experiment was done multiple times, someone put a very famous photo from a very famous photographer on some photography critique forum and it was torn apart: badly framed, blurry, no composition, ....
the vast majority of people have no idea what they are doing, going on vibes and copying the opinions of their peers
I’ve only seen that happen once, and it was using a cropped Monet, but by cropping it, the picture actually did become bad. It was poorly composed, the colour balance was ruined and the level of detail was too low relative to the size of the brush strokes. These ‘gotchas’, when they aren’t just complete fabrications (which, given how often I see people talk about them, but how rarely I see any evidence presented, is most of the time) generally only reveal how little the people running the ‘experiments’ understood about art in the first place.
Most people in general, and for sure the majority of current twitter users have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to modernist art and its direct predecessors.
> Probably not, if you factor in the cost of security exploits. A single compromise can potentially sink the business.
Agreed however getting humans to understand probability is tricky.
I had this discussion with my son recently about considering the severity of outcome multiplied by the probability of that outcome been the way to look at some things.
And if thieves stole a bag of paper from you, that happen to have the number $100 and some other artwork written on them by the government, what then? It's not money, it's just some "paper asset"? You're just showing your own personal bias about what the definition of money is.
$3.5B stolen was "stable coins", which you could equate to a piece of paper with a dollar amount written on it.
Those are largely freezable by the issuer of the paper.
Then we have $2.4B in Bitcoin and ETH stolen. Those are not directly freezable.
However, if that does create a liquidity challenge for these exchanges, what if the price just so happens to drop by 60% after trading is restricted? That liability might shrink in actual value.
What if the bag of paper "money" is in a foreign currency? You'd still happily call it money, but then the distinctions you're trying to draw with crypto don't really apply. Think of crypto as a foreign currency, it still functions as money.
Crypto isn't foreign currency. The price may fluctuate wildly based on sentiment and action taken by exchanges such as Binance, which would directly impact their obligation here.
Comparing crypto to actual currency typically connected to large, real economies is not relevant here.
The crypto economy isn't real, it's a pointless wealth redistribution scheme.
Anyway, that and your question are hardly relevant to the fact that Binance and their cabal own the crypto exchanges and consequently could manipulate the price to reduce the size of their obligation denominated in crypto rather than currency or stable coins.
So like, three exchanges, one of which died? Even if we assume everyone in the group is willing to tank crypto values, that's not a very big power level increase beyond what Binance has by itself.
Believe whatever you want about Binance's influence.
I understand Binance alone accounts for a third of the market, and their ability to coordinate with other exchanges is hardly restricted to the participants we know were in that specific group chat.
I think the point stands that a liability in eg. USD is much different from one denominated in crypto.
This isn't about what I want to believe, it's that at the slightest requests for clarification/evidence you've gone from "the fact that Binance and their cabal own the crypto exchanges" to "ability to coordinate".
Yeah Binance itself is big but it'll take a lot more than one exchange, an exchange everyone is now handling with extra suspicion, to cause a crash.
> I think the point stands that a liability in eg. USD is much different from one denominated in crypto.
If course it's different but that's so much weaker of a point. And the foreign currency comparisons weren't to particularly stable currencies.
They still need to find buyers at that price. The price is what it is because there are no buyers below that price. If they artificially drop the price there won't be any buyers at the new price so they won't be able to buy any bitcoin so they won't be able to give it to the customers it was stolen from.
I wasn't thinking about some fake price they set on their own exchange, but actions that could tank the market, which I understand Binance alone makes up 30% of.
Crypto at it's current price has a market cap around $2.6T. Obviously the liquidity is questionable, and since crypto isn't connected to any mention worthy real economic activity, a change in sentiment can quickly crash the price and liquidate leveraged positions.
While that's of course true for other assets also, crypto not being connected to production of real value, combined with the comparative lack of regulation, makes it much easier to manipulate.
To me it's clear that crypto is worthless, so I don't see a point in such an action.
In my view their interest, which aligns with that of all other major owners of crypto, is to acquire as much real currency as possible.
Acquiring more crypto by decreasing its valuation is not furthering that.
Maintaining a high valuation and positive sentiment in order to convert buyer's real currency into profit to cash out is what I believe their strategy is.
Yes, and we could have a paper money system where a registry of stolen serial numbers is kept and they can’t be deposited at any bank or used to pay the government ever again.
This seemed so pointless and uninteresting to me. It's obviously a blindspot for me, since it's so heavily upvoted and liked by many. But for me, mindlessly clicking the prompted location, after sitting through some pointless into logos, leading to absolutely no payoff at all, just ending credits, was distasteful. Can someone who enjoyed this experience articulate why, so that I can reflect on my own personal failing in this regard?
The beauty of Hackernews, no way to determine whether it's a clueless boomer from old-tech days or a high IQ individual layering the joke even further.
Of course those are real issues that should be addressed. Just like if a factory producing bicycles is running all night and keeping you awake. But it's not something that should be concerning for anyone outside the area. It's not an existential crisis, just a local nuisance.
There's absolutely, obviously a place for data centers in our world and country, just like there already has been this entire century so far.
The issue right now is the boom of data center building has them being built wherever approval can be had, rather than in more reasonable industrial locations.
It's reasonable to not want a data center built next to you in the same way it's reasonable to not want an iron smelter or pit mine built next to you. There are reasonable places to build data centers, pit mines, and iron smelters and it's not residential neighborhoods. Building them in residential neighborhoods anyway because they can, is what is forcing this issue to a head.
That and water usage building them in places with water issues. There are a lot of places in the country that don't have water issues. Data can be moved around the country quickly. The problems are solvable, but the builders are more interested in chasing short-term dollar than solving them. The opposition should hopefully reshape the construction into a more reasonable reality.
> But it's not something that should be concerning for anyone outside the area.
Of course. Esp. for the bigger datacenters which generate their own power and release large amounts of emissions to the atmosphere.
It's good that that air never moves and all this emission stays inside the cube formed by the ground, four borders of the datacenter and personal airspace ceiling prescribed by the governments.
Given that the datacenter operators run air purifiers and give the filtered out emissions to government (or licensed 3rd parties) for conversion to carbon credits, there's no harm done.
Just some local noise nuisance, and maybe some heat, but all of them are manageable. Residents can use earplugs and more powerful air conditioners to restore or surpass their previous life quality.
This is not only progress, but how one changes the world for the better.
I hope you keep to your principles and make sure not to lock your doors at night, and don't deny anyone the right to live in your house with you for free if they desire.
Sorry I must brake away from HN guidelines here: But this is an infinitely dumb comparison. I can’t even begin to fathom what kind of endless ignorance and prejudges can possess a person to speak such stupid words.
A persons house is not the same as a border. You are comparing apples to grocery stores here. An immigrant can simply build another house next to mine if they want it. You can have open borders and private residence at the same time. One does not exclude the other.
Typical response. Defending my home isn't racist. And your willingness to use that accusation is pathetic and not really worthy of a response... but understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation. Your dismissal is not cogent, it just hides utter misunderstanding of reality, and a desire to make other people pay a price you're not willing to pay yourself.
> understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation
People from other cities may enter my city, but people from other homes may not enter my home. These concepts are not the same, nor are they close, nor are they comparable.
"Advocating open national borders means you must let random strangers live in your house" a truly reasonable and not at all disingenuous argument. On par with "advocating socialism means you must let random strangers use your toothbrush".
Misrepresenting the argument is not a good look. The argument is that everyone believes in borders. And that borders aren't racist. The only question is where we personally accept them being drawn. But NOBODY believes they're inherently all bad. Not even the people who pretend to do so, and are all too happy to throw around accusations of fascism and racism, to appeal to base emotion rather than logical and practical arguments.
But the person you are responding to didn't say "any and all borders are racist, including borders in your own home". You are the one misrepresenting their argument.
I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, or you genuinely believe what you're saying. I was the one saying that a border is a border, and you had better have a good explanation as to why the national border is fundamentally different from your home. If it's okay to protect your home, why is it WRONG to protect your country? See? I was putting the OP to the test: why is one just fine, but the other reprehensible? Instead, the OP responded with accusations of racism.
There is a lot of space in my country that is not actively used as living space. On the other hand, 100% of the space in my home is actively used as living space.
Comparing a country and a home is a poor comparison.
Why? An argument stands on its own, regardless of origin. If it's poorly written, by someone who is say a non-native speaker, it can still be a VALUABLE and VALID argument. It would be racist to dismiss an argument because it was poorly written by a non-native speaker. "Racism" against a computer is just as ignorant and petty.
It's a feature of reality. That's why all this chatter about taking billionaires down a peg or two is ultimately fruitless. All you're doing is aiding someone else's power play -- who will then have the excess privilege and power that rankles the masses. But there is nothing to be done, it has always been that way, and always will. Those who think communism or any other governmental structure actually solves this problem, is deluded; it just transfers the power somewhere else. Putin is richer than Bill Gates.
reply