HN user

anodari

144 karma
Posts0
Comments91
View on HN
No posts found.

If you use an intermediary, implementation is usually very simple and straightforward. The biggest challenge is becoming a direct participant—that is, communicating directly with the central bank. In this case, you need to enter the regulatory framework and become a payment institution.

You mean the deniers' view.

There may have been skeptics 20 years ago, but now no one seriously doubts it.

I don't understand how technology people make decisions to deny a problem even if there is no 100% certainty. In my company, even if there is less than a 1% chance of something going wrong, we have to think of ways to mitigate it.

In the same line, there are also a phrase about technology, "is everything that doesn’t work yet." by Danny Hillis, "Electric motors were once technology – they were new and did not work well. As they evolved, they seem to disappear, even though they proliferated and were embedded by the scores into our homes and offices. They work perfectly, silently, unminded, so they no longer register as “technology.” https://kk.org/thetechnium/everything-that/

Nice article, congratulations. I have worked with information systems all my life and one of the biggest insights I had was that the transaction, a purchase or a sale, which is the basis of the ERP system, is converted into 2 flows, the money that enters or leaves on one side and the product or service in another, this is accounting double entry. It may be obvious and simple, but I see that few people in my area have this understanding.

My father and my uncles owned a small printing company between 1970 and 1990. There were 3 linotypes at one time. I was always amazed by those complex machines. Back then, in my teens, I worked on the process of melting lead lines so that they became lead bars that feed the linotype. Imagine the safety when a teenager has to play with lead melted at 400°Celsius.

As a software engineer, you must face global warming as a risk mitigation problem. You know, you could just ignore the risk of a catastrophe. But, usually, mitigations plans make the system more secure and robust, and people being calmer, even if the risk never happens.

I know it's very difficult to explore, but I think one possibility would be to look for life on gas giant moons in habitable zones. Even if they are tidal locked, they would have a day-night cycle.

A friend in college believed in the concept of a matter-repelling antimatter drive that generates propulsion by one repelling another. However, this experiment demonstrates that it may not be possible.

Could this experiment enforce theories that propose gravity operates differently from quantum theory?

Unlike Bill Gates, I believe that this AI is the most revolutionary technology in human history, but at the same time, I am also concerned about its impact. The potential for AI to automate a significant number of jobs in a short period of time is alarming and unprecedented. It is ironic that the jobs we once believed to be the most difficult for AI to replace, such as those requiring high levels of human intelligence and creativity, are now at risk of being taken over.

The 5% Rule 4 years ago

Yes, tech support can be difficult and it seems like your statistics are similar to ours. We receive around 5,000 support tickets per day and we simply cannot satisfy everyone. Sometimes we have to "fire" a customer who becomes disrespectful towards one of our attendants.

Overall, the reasoning in the text appears to be valid. It is true that the cost to build a fusion reactor may never be cost-effective compared to solar and wind energy, but from a human and scientific perspective, it makes sense to continue researching and developing fusion technology. It is possible that in the future, we may need fusion power for space exploration or other purposes, and it is important to continue pursuing this technology in order to advance our understanding and capabilities in this area.