HN user

conchy

111 karma
Posts0
Comments49
View on HN
No posts found.

As someone who makes cold brew every day, this is one of the two approaches I've considered to speed things up, the other being one of those magnetic stirrers they have in chemistry lab. However, after careful consideration, the real low-hanging-fruit here is the time it takes to grind the coffee, load it, fill the water, clean the filter, and rinse the jar. If a cold brew machine could automate these steps (like some hot coffee machines do) you wouldn't care about making a cup in 3 minutes because you'd always have an automatic jar ready for you from 24 hours ago.

Antimacassar 3 years ago

Odd that the "Soul Glow" late-70s/early-80s greasy hair product revival didn't get a wiki mention

When money used to have a firm link to the real world, when it was lost (like when gold coins sunk to the bottom of the sea or were stolen by pirates) it was really lost.

Certainly it can been seen as a "feature" of the current fiat currency regime that your lost/stolen money can be "recovered". But it can also been seen as a "crippling fault" when this "feature" can be so easily exploited by those running the system.

Because the people who control the money everywhere on this planet all simultaneously debase their phony currencies all the time over and over again, creating a hidden inflation tax that there was no way to avoid until bitcoin was invented.

That was also my first reaction when I saw their choice of name for this. Daimler-Benz owns Unimog, I'm sure they have plenty of lawyers hanging around ready to defend their intellectual property.

Ken Allen 6 years ago

I feel like I'd like to see some photo verification on who exactly is the equity trader he was supposedly named for.

The article brings up an interesting legal point as to whether bitcoin will be afforded the special legal status of paper cash that protects innocent recipients who accept stolen money ... but really paper cash has no such protections when you're talking about millions of dollars of it, so the point is entirely moot.

No surprise coming from The Economist, this article has done the best job (that I've seen) of explaining these complex topics in a language accessible to most. I now understand the significance of this new discovery and its limitations. And I like how they've stayed humble with their tie-in to Watson's famous prediction in the last sentence.

Over hundreds of years of proximity to nearly limitless natural lumber, North Americans have evolved a highly complex network of water mains, smoke detectors, fire hydrants, and fire fighters to quickly come and put out the fires that inevitably happen before everyone burns because we build nearly everything out of flammable, cheap wood!

Imagine how much money and effort we could save if we build shit of of something that doesn't burn!

Seems like this analysis has vastly under-appreciated wood's tendency to burn. Yes, I see they've mentioned how in one specific type of burn test "modern cross-laminated timber panels perform better in fire tests than steel ones" ... but come on, are they suggesting that any kind of wooden house is safer than a cinderblock house? Storm risk?

It's great that wood is environmentally friendly and all, but does this opinion really consider how many more humans would likely die in house fires or tornados if we all moved into wooden homes?

Vast swaths of this planets are covered in nothing but cinderblock structures, and you know another thing they don't really need to worry about? Fire departments.