Why would you want to put the onus of proving something illegal was done on the victims?Banning pervert glasses solves the problem at the root. Plus it's orders of magnitude more easy to prove someone wore them than proving something illegal was done with them.MPAA - make perverts afraid again ;)
That just means no extra money during these times.You don't need to try timing the market.You operate with thresholds instead: the $150k have become $150k + x -> move x to stable assets and wait until the next time there's x extra.What's not working is trying to have a reliable, stable source of extra incoming.Skimming gains is possible though.
You can withdraw/shift allocation to more stable assets during bullruns and live off these stable assets until the rest of your more volatile assets have made gains again.
In that case the fee would be around three-fiddy and not $85 or almost 50%.Just have a look at the most recent slap on Meta's wrist for knowingly ruining countless lives of children and teenagers.
It's not only tasty and easy to make, it's healthy as well!I love it, too.And you can vary it in so many ways: with chickpeas, beans none of the former, peppers, whatever you like...
To put it bluntly: if you do an offline transaction, you're prone to fraud.If you expect the senders account chain to have balance x (because that's your offline record for that) and the sender has sent all funds to a different address after you synced that account chain, you receive money that isn't there - kind of like an invalid cheque.I have no clue how that would work in practice, because to know a random account in advance, you'd have to sync the whole amount of account chains there is (called block lattice in Nano's case).With a mobile device that's hardly feasible and without a mobile device I don't see how you'd get in contact with people to make such an offline transaction.
That kind of specialized AI is what I imagine to be a use case for locally run AI, too.After all you don't want to build processes on an AI, where you have zero control over what happens behind the curtains.That includes feeding potentially sensitive data back to it as well as being unable to control the training data set, its learning, version numbers, etc.
Without getting hold of one of the members of that group or rather their unlocked device running Signal, they'll have a hard time reading the group chats.
edit: damn, should've read more than the headline...
Funny, that you even know about Nano!...it's one of the often overlooked projects because it doesn't have a ton of fuck-off-money and instead tries to focus on a solid protocol.
Nano has a lot of interesting attributes, but I fail to see how what you describe would work in practice.If both parties want to make sure there are no shenenigans at play, they need to know about the most recent state of the respective account chains, which essentially requires them to be online for agreeing on said transaction.But overall Nano is very fast and efficient by design and only a failure in terms of "gainz for Lambo".
As we're here in a thread about AI I should remark that machine-to-machine-payments - in this case: agent-to-agent-payments - would work pretty well with Nano as currency because of the transaction finality (typically less than 1 second) and the feeless nature of transactions.If AI agents are looking for the most viable way to transfer tiny amounts of value fast and without fees they might find Nano and use it - who knows......and just like Nano showed that efficient ways to create digital money are possible I'm hoping for efficient AI models that are economically and ecologically worthwhile.
I'm glad you specifically pointed out proof-of-work blockchains.They're very inefficient (economically and ecologically) by design. In almost all cases this design isn't warranted.Alas there are other designs and while most of them are rubbish as well, a few ones are doing things quite right.
I hope that just like other schemes than proof-of-work were thought of regarding blockchains, there will be AI models that are way, way more efficient and ideally can be run locally - for those cases that can use AI...
That's what the second paragraph of my comment was about.I don't want to normalize his behaviour by not even telling what he's about to violate, violates or has violated.
Isn't there a 22nd amendment to the constitution, which says a president can be elected for a maximum of two terms?But why should that amendmend specifically or the constitution at all be respected by a criminal?
A lesson like getting rid of all the mf that oppose all that for others while enjoying it themselves?Do you realize how socialist it sounds to want that for all and not only for the best of the best of the best?
I'm not aware of Steam ever having removed a purchased game from a library.If you have a reliable source that says otherwise please link it.
Technically they could do that of course.But it would be bad for their business and have people do more business with gog.com.Steam gets chosen over gog.com for convenience.If purchased games disappear that will be even more inconvenient.
edit: I mean "Steam ever having removed a purchased game from a library" in the sense of for no good reason.Following legal requirements or being dependent on external resources (e.g. game servers) outside the responsibility of Steam are different things and I wouldn't blame Steam for it.There's a reason for the trust people have in Steam.And there are plenty of reasons for not having trust in Sony.
Why would you want to put the onus of proving something illegal was done on the victims?Banning pervert glasses solves the problem at the root. Plus it's orders of magnitude more easy to prove someone wore them than proving something illegal was done with them.MPAA - make perverts afraid again ;)