Satoshi regularly took two spaces after a period. He uses vocabulary tied to British
There is a famous British cryptographer called Adam Back, who is also the inventor of the proof of work method laid out on the paper “hashcash”. He also leaves two spaces after a period (or used too)
I don’t think it really matters who created it. If you read the political story of bitcoin things look a lot clearer.
“The Blocksize War: The Battle Over Who Controls Bitcoin's Protocol Rules” is a good entry point
> Satoshi regularly took two spaces after a period.
So did I, for a long time, because I was taught that way in typing class. And so were millions of other people. It's how it was usually done on typewriters. It supposedly made the text easier to read.
It has fallen out of fashion now. I eventually switched to one space once I realized things were going that direction. I'm not sure if I had switched by 2009.
So I think this just tells you that Satoshi is probably old enough to have been taught the old rule.
I will say, I did enjoy reading abriosi's assumption, though. As I get older I get more aware of the things I just "took for granted" that everyone knows (because nearly everyone in my generation does know it) are really just generation-specific.
Like when I learned most kids can't read cursive anymore. Or that, for a long time, my use of "emoji noses", :-), really dated me (and I still think it looks better with a nose than without!) So I admit I had a similar chuckle with the idea that putting two spaces after a period was a unique characteristic! Even well into the PC era, 2 spaces was the norm before proportional fonts became widespread. And I still had a heck of a time moving to a single space because it just looked so weird to me.
Adam Back is far too jealous of Satoshi inventing Bitcoin. He put, “Bitcoin is HashCash extended with inflation control” in his Twitter profile for years after he got into Bitcoin after initially dismissing it when contacted by Satoshi. Back definitely isn’t Satoshi.
Yeah, there are many, many reasons why Back is not and cannot be Satoshi. These emails also provide more evidence that Satoshi was what would later be called a “Big Blocker” in favor of on-chain scaling and minimal tx fees set by nodes independently (though likely converging). Back is famously a Small Blocker who employed all the major Small Blocker devs with Blockstream, which ended up effectively controlling Bitcoin Core. Thankfully, we still have Bitcoin Cash following Satoshi’s intended path for scaling.
Even if this is correct (which it probably is) it doesn't matter because bch is worthless because it doesn't have the name bitcoin. Whoever controls bitcoin core controls the meaning of the word "bitcoin" so if the bch people never find a way to wrest back control from the blockstream people then this whole thing is just irrelevant. History is written by the victors, etc
That perspective is valid, but it’s not mine. BCH is bigger than Bitcoin circa Satoshi’s days already. I’m honestly not too concerned about it. The Bitcoin that I became interested in still exists. It just isn’t called BTC/“Bitcoin” anymore.
There are, but SV and ABC (now called eCash/XEC) also made departures from Bitcoin that I feel are pretty significant:
BSV: completely removed any concept of a tx spam cap and encouraged use of its blockchain for random data storage. Neither of these are things Satoshi supported. Its spiritual leader is also a charlatan.
XEC: changed both the mining algorithm and added in a "dev tax" on block rewards. The dev tax in particular is something I don't imagine Satoshi would have supported, or he would have added it himself from the start.
Bitcoin SV is the Craig Wright-backed crypto that is pretty different from Bitcoin, and is only "following Satoshi's intended path" if you actually believe that hack is Satoshi
I learned on a PC, and we were taught that way initially also. I still think it makes sentences easier to read, so still do it. Though usually on mobile it's .nn because that's where my thumb always wants to land.
My take on it is that GPT is already a general purpose technology. It already can be used to solve ill defined coding problems that were not possible to solve a couple of years ago.
I feel that some people lack creativity to use it.
GPT is as good as the user is at posing good and well defined questions and tasks.
Its ability to perform few shot learning is astounding.
Do you have example chats you can link to? I find too many times, people make claims like this about user error then provide chats where the code doesn’t actually work or it would've taken just as long to google as to go ten rounds crafting just the right prompt for it.
It has been known for years that megahertz are a terrible metric to measure CPU performance. The peak of that discussion was during the launch of Pentium 4, where it was proven that the IPC was much worse when comparing to a previous Pentium even though it had a lot more the clock speed.
I'm actually mostly in your camp here. But it's complicated with AI.
What if someone gave you a binary and the source code, but not a compiler? Maybe not even a language spec?
Or what if they gave you a binary and the source code and a fully documented language spec, and both of 'em all the way down to the compiler? BUT it only runs on special proprietary silicon? Or maybe even the silicon is fully documented, but producing that silicon is effectively out of reach to all but F100 companies?
There is the binary (the model) and the source (the thing that allows you to recreate the model, the dataset and methodology). Compilers and how art is made quite simply doesn't factor in here, because nobody is talking about the compiler layer. Art isn't even close to what is present. Trying to make this more complicated than it is is playing into companies' hands by troubling the waters around what constitutes open source.
Well, no pixel 8 for me. Pixel 7a will be my last pixel phone.
I thought pixel 7a would be a nice upgrade from my pixel 4a. Three months later, the battery barely lasts a a day, and the microphone stopped working clearly due to a software bug, ie, it works on calls and videos, but not on applications.
While making voice calls on a Bluetooth system, the connection randomly drops, and when it connects back, the microphone doesn't work, only speaker. Very poor product for the price.
The wireless charging charges 1% per hour. There are probably more issues I can't remember right now
For what it’s worth, the Pixel 7 series (and maybe 6) has compatibility issues with some wireless chargers. It’s actually quite quick if you find one that plays nice: I measure 12-15 watts, so not much slower than wired. Incompatible chargers pull 3 watts or less, disconnect frequently, and often don’t even offset the phone’s regular drain.
I had to try a few to find one that works properly in my car. I’ve had good luck with chargers from Anker and Peak Design, and bad luck with Apple, JSAUX, and Spigen branded chargers. Google’s own chargers presumably work fine as well.
(Also, a lot of Qi chargers are extremely picky about the USB-PD or QC specs of the power adapter you use. I highly recommend using a USB power/voltage monitor to make sure they negotiate PD or QC power at 9/12v rather than the base 5v/1a. Without that, you’ll be charging at an absolute maximum of 5 watts before Qi losses.)
Okay you've run into problems but it's probably worth noting that this is not typical. Most people rave about the "a" line of pixel phones and they definitely last longer than 3 months before completely malfunctioning like yours is.
I'm not sure how easy it is to repair but I'd be shocked if you're not still within your warranty period and you couldn't get a replacement for your clearly defective device.
Hmm, Iphone 14 pro max takes 2h15 to charge on the cable, so roughly 2x as much, even longer wirelessly. The other points may be a fair critique but this one isn't. My Galaxy 22 ultra takes also around 1% per hour wired, I don't see any issue there, this is what non-chinese flagships deliver now/last year.
I believe that the statement "the car will be cheaper because there is a subscription add-on enhancing the amount of horsepower available" is false
This is a case of creative business modeling. I believe that companies should invest in creating good business models. They also shouldn't over complicate them
Given that, I believe that the subscriptions to unlock seat heaters are a worse example of this and not great for customer satisfaction. Specially since all those cars are already equipped with seat heaters and essentially artificially jailed by software
LOL. There's that saying... "We pass the savings on to the customer."
Nobody ever does this. The savings is never passed onto the customer. The only time that happens is when they're trying to get just in under the competition's price, but will never go lower than that. Nobody is trying to pass the savings onto the customer, ever.
Before all this Machine Learning madness, while I was studying unsupervised learning I had the following thought:
To cluster is to create an ideia, a concept which encompasses a set of data points. A cluster might be bigger than the set of points with which was created and intersect with other clusters. This is still what I visualize when I see image models interpolating between "concepts".
Believing that all an LLM does is the likelihood of adjacent words is probably an oversimplification. My verdict about this topic is: I don't know and I'm totally confused about what interpolation and extrapolation mean in higher dimensions
I recently bought an electric car and it is an enjoyable experience. It makes no noise, there is loads of space everywhere. I don't visit gas stations anymore, I have less stress in traffic situations; the car handles all the workload of heavy traffic. I rarely use the brakes and mostly drive using one pedal. It is by far the most comfortable car I have ever driven.
The cheery on top is its performance. It feels awesome to have a supercar available at a moments notice if you want too, although it gets normal and boring very fast. Also, it is scary to have loads of torque and you have to respect that.
Overall, electric cars offer a very good bang for the buck.
In the end, mechanically, the cars are very simple and you feel that simplicity. They feel polished and well engineered
I get a Renault Zoë occasionally through our car sharing. It's my favourite of the cars available for all but very long trips. But I agree that you have to respect the torque, even in a minor car like the Zoë. I find myself sometimes accelerating dangerously just because it's so much fun!
Try it in very slow and in particular stop-and-go traffic. The acceleration curve is very smooth and predictable and makes these conditions a lot less stressful.
There is a famous British cryptographer called Adam Back, who is also the inventor of the proof of work method laid out on the paper “hashcash”. He also leaves two spaces after a period (or used too)
I don’t think it really matters who created it. If you read the political story of bitcoin things look a lot clearer.
“The Blocksize War: The Battle Over Who Controls Bitcoin's Protocol Rules” is a good entry point