Readit NewsMy wife, who does not have ADHD (at all), gets hyper from stimulants.
That’s the difference.
Being tired after drinking caffeine is common.
With a simple cipher it's near impossible for anyone to use but you
I checked a good few of the stocks he listed. I figured he would have struck a lucky score at one point but he seemed to have an uncanny ability to always pick losing stocks.
I was hoping for a happy ending like how many of the people I played Runescape with who hosted dicing games, speculated and flipped in-game assets became successful quants irl, but he sure did seem to just pick a gimmick and roll with it, never evolving or changing.
In Canada it's openly discussed that recent immigration policy could be excessive. It's not a fringe anti-immigrant viewpoint, it's discussed in the media and at the dinner table.
Canada is a very pro-immigrant country, but there is nuance in the discussion
https://abacusdata.ca/unmasking-public-unease-with-canadas-i...
And it's all because of the consumable nature of batteries. Consumers don't buy used phones for the same reason
The ship of theseus doesn't really work for EVs (yet)
I find that a plastic flossing pick works really well. (I'd be hesitant to use anything metal like a bobby pin.)
With a plastic toothpick I scraped the inside corners. At first nothing came out, but after a few scrapes multiple dust balls emerged. Honestly a surprising amount
I plugged it in, "that snap feeling again..." charging sound
"It's not what you know, it's who you know"
You too can acquire this "privilege" by building relationships with people.
Not necessarily. There's two interpretations to the question: 1. QC would be very efficient and mine efficiently. 2. QC would break SHA and would be able to reverse the hashing function at O(1).
In scenario 1. The difficulty would increase. The mining rate globally always stays the same. And the voting power would be distributed amongst the holders of the new compute, this has happened before with ASICs. Usually there's some graduality to it, and the capital is distributed so that there is never a 51% monopoly. It's especially relevant how big the jump is, if the new computer is stronger than all of the existing miners combined, then they get 100% theoretically (although with malice). In that case there would probably be a fork or as you put it, BTC would collapse. However, if you have that power, holding BTC is probably not that important anyway. The actual compute is worth more.
On scenario 2. Yes BTC would crash, but then again the actual compute power would be more impactful. BTC would crash but so would encryption, and planes and the world.
Sad to see Bitcoin advocates use this dismissive argument.
Centralized systems will update their software as the threat increases. Meanwhile, there are no serious proposals for a quantum-resistance Bitcoin. Some are estimating the update will require a hard fork and take 1 year to update.