hjorthjort

Problem is NIV is not open source, technically I would need a license. There's lots of more modern translations, like the World English Bible.

I think using KJV is good for enhancing the joke though.

Ever seen the classic response "None Of These Words Are In The Bible" to a strange sentence? Now you can check if it's true! Supports most social media and most (English) open source bible versions.

An important and often misunderstood point:

Having >2/3rds of validators (or >50% of power in PoW) let's you rewrite the chain back in history, censor txs, etc. You control what transactions go in blocks, and to a certain extent also recent history.

HOWEVER, this does not give you the power to steal or rewrite state as you please. You cannot convince the rest of the network that you now own someone else's ETH just because you have supermajority validator power. To take away ETH or change the cabin state in any other way, you need to include a valid and correctly signed transaction.

If you include an invalid state change (not caused by a successful and correct transaction) then all other nodes will reject that block, no matter how much validator power or hashing work went into it.

Sounds more like an issue with the team and onboarding than a problem with you, IMHO. I say: cut your losses and swallow your pride, share what you just told us with a senior engineer, and consider yourself "back in training". If you still have a bunch of things to learn that you absolutely need, then you need to learn them. Expecting you to know things you don't know is both pointless and soul crushing.

> The problem is at this point I have been on the team too long to ask any basic questions, one of the senior engineers even pointed out they shouldn't be helping me with certain processes at this point.

This is both mean and unhelpful. And possibly a sign that they don't realize how bad they are at training a junior.

My first thought was "you know who would want this? Insurance companies!" Doctor have a moral incentive -- often a strong one! -- to maximize your health, but they actually don't have the economic incentive to keep you healthy. Their incentives are similar to those of drug companies. But insurance companies want you to need as little care as possible. They are the ones who will sponsor your checkups, may encourage you to exercise, etc. They also tend to have some sway over healthcare providers, or at least an ability to offer helpful information. And they have loads of money. Your operational costs should be peanuts to them. My insurance company (in Europe) offer me a free hotline of 24/7 medical workers for asking minor health questions, because they want to make sure I stay healthy, and the operational cost of that staff is probably way beyond what you need. Abd private insurance companies compete on customer features, so it could actually be a selling point for them to lock up customers, who tend to stick around for a long time.

I realize I'm a total armchair advisor here and what the hell do I know. But reading how this person approached potential customers I kept thinking "oh man I wonder what will happen when he talks to the insurance companies, why would they not be interested?"

The inventor of the logic of questions was named Whately. That tracks.

I don't know at what level this is used, but I have only ever seen it in my graduate level logic and mathematics courses. (I'm European.)

I like it. Part of a good proof is a rigorous derivation. There is plenty of thing sto be said about what intuition can lead us towards such a proof. But at the end of the day, a good proof is ideally almost machine-checkable. Most proofs (much like code) lives two lives: the one in which they are written, and the one in which they are read. It should be almost trivial for a student to go back, on their own, days or weeks later, and see that each step is valid. And I think prose interspersed between column-style proofs do a better job than what margin notes do. The reason two columns work well is that the step and it's justification are of both condensed and almost always of similar length. Justification (much like code comments) may or may not need a good chunk of space. And surely nothing is stopping anyone from inserting little margin notes here and there in a two-colum proof, right?

They're missing the point. The web already allows you to easily spin up a private network where you can set all the rules. Web2 was the cash grab based on the realization that if you can bring all these people under a network you control you can run the web. Web3 is about the meta-features people care about that brought them onto web2 -- shared state, a common truth, enforceable rules -- but putting them at the protocol level, out of the control of a single actor. That takes trade-offs. (If you know how to solve these issues without these trade-offs, let me know and let's build it!) The original web is still there, and it's still useful. So is web2. This is about building an alternative.

Word of advice: don't go looking for your private keys. If someone was malicious they could log all fetched pages and scan those for keys with funds attached. The act of looking up a specific key is revealing information.

I've noticed that there are a few hardcoded ones on the final page, where the account exists and the key is wrong.

I'd say odds are that the website is wrong, but you can always load those keys in a wallet and see if they give you control over the actual address.

If that works, I'd assume it's the case that some people have used weak keys (for example, a popular Ethereum wallet would actually generate 256 bits of entropy but accidentally truncate it to 32 bits in an operation), and any funds in those wallets will have been snagged long ago.

Point being: generate a private key properly, and no one will ever find it.

EDIT: I realize this is another page then the one I've seen previously, but I think the same idea applies. That one had support for Ethereum, too, and on the final page was an account with a balance.

Not really. The point is: there's always someone who has a debt in DAI they need to pay off. If they thought the dip would go even further , they would wait longer, because to them, the DAI does have value: it is what they need to get their hands on to get their collateral back.