mbar84

> But a struggling economy, questionable planning for many years now, the "educated middle class" he mentioned in the post shrinking don't bode well for it.

Indeed. I left the country recently for this and many other reasons. I don't even think the problem is with party politics. The people are too comfortable with the promises that have been made to them and who don't want anything to change. The situation is even worse in France especially with regard to pensions. Any change that is necessary will be fought against with tooth and nail.

The last government to do long-term reforms was under Gerhard Schröder. His party, the SPD, paid a heavy price. The far left wing of the party split off into the WASG, which in the meantime has become Die Linke. The voters don't reward but instead punish long-term reforms.

So now the divided party politics have learned their lesson and just deliver what the divided people are demanding. Best of luck.

> I want you, I want you, I want some of you

What about what I want? What if I don't want what you want? What if my criteria for a recipe is perfectly well served by an AI and I don't want your project to be my project.

Time is scarce. People don't owe you their time. If the LLM can save me time, and give an acceptable result, I'll use it. If I had infinite time (which I don't) maybe I'd participate in your project and learn to appreciate the nuance and humanity and whatnot related to cooking. Until then, I have other things to do.

> I never look for any type of tax dodge.

If you're engaging in philanthropy, dodging taxes is perfectly justified. The main thing to look out for is whether or not you are using the money better than the government would, which isn't that difficult.

Would be good for Tesla's reputation if they would upload/mirror the crash data to a neutral third party. Then the police and plaintiff could get it from there without any allegations of withholding data.

I've heard this expressed as existence versus life. Nobody owes it to to give up their life for the life of another, let alone if all that can be hoped for is the mere existence of another.

The connection between sludge and distrust in government is worth emphasizing. The narrow minded and short term focus on metrics leads people in the managerial class to lose sight of reputational damage. Dehumanizing treatment may lose a corporation a customer, but what does it do to government and citizens?

If you receive btc in a transaction, the question is, when you consider it to be settled. In other words, how much energy is enough for you to consider it infeasible for an attacker to rewrite recent blocks so that you no longer are the recipient of some btc.

One way to think about it is to relate the total fees to the value of your transaction. If fees in blocks with a block height above the block with your transaction total $10000 (the security budget) then an attacker might be willing to spend that amount on energy to rewrite the chain. Another way to think about it is to relate the security budget to all recent transactions, assuming the attacker is the counter party to all of them (worst case).

In either case, there is no obviously correct answer to how high the security budget has to be on a per-block basis. The question is how long you're willing to wait for the security budget to accumulate and cover your transaction. If the block subsidy decreases and fees don't rise to replace them, then settlement time increases. Don't hand out goods to a counter party if the value of your transaction hasn't at least been met by the security budget. No need to wait longer than the point at which the value of all transactions of the block which includes your transaction has been exceeded by the security budget. An attacker would be losing money at that point if they tried to scam you.

That wasn't the reason to restrict block size. There is no way to scale the number of transactions on the main layer to anywhere near the level required to cover daily transactions. The bitcoin main layer was always destined to be for settlements between financial institutions anyway. Making any accommodations for use cases that are fundamentally unsustainable never made sense. Buying coffee was always going to have to be on a second or third layer, so restricting the block size introduces an incentive to develop those layers that are needed anyway.

Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. - The law cannot compel the impossible.

A judicial system populated by people who don't understand what's possible is a real issue.

I hope the only valid use for WhatsApp becomes giving people a link to your Signal.

I really like how well the node editor preserves the path as much as possible when adding or removing nodes, apparently adjusting adjacent nodes to minimize distortion.

Why would you give your product a quite specific name that's exactly the same as another product? "Core 2 Duo" immediately brings an Intel CPU to mind and will probably make it harder to search for anything related to the watch.

One definite UX improvement over the past 25 years have been command menus. In the most simple implementation, press Ctrl+P start typing to filter a list of commands down and hit enter.

None of this is settled economic theory. Even just the conclusion in the second sentence is highly debatable. Capital investments are a market and it is completely plausible that they will clear like any other with a fixed money supply, just at a different price level than with an expanding money supply.

The pricing on these products is frustrating. To even try out the Phind-405B model I have to pay $20 and then I get unlimited queries which I never asked for? For a product I don't even know if I'll ever use again, give me usage based pricing.