He got into working satellite internet before everyone else

Satellite internet has existed before Starlink. What’s novel about starlink is that the satellites are much closer to earth, which allows for a low ping, but comes at the cost of needing to replace the satellites every few years, as they’ll deorbit by themselves, and needing a whole lot more of them. It only offers an advantage over cheaper alternatives (terrestrial internet or satellite internet in geostationary orbit) when you’re somewhere without proper infrastructure, and those areas tend to not be wealthy. So, the question is, is there enough demand to pay for replacing the entire constellation of satellites every few years?

Each time you load the page, there’s an auction to sell ad spots. The advertiser has to pay their bid once you click on the add.

Well, seems like he learned his lesson. Would have been better if he had learned it before his bad advice got children killed, but at least he learned instead of doubling down.

Yes, it’s so far fetched that Anon expects the cops to be called.

Yeah but then if they pass your id and agree to the bribery they’ll give you the 100$? It’s the wrong way around to be bribery.

The bet is that Anon is 24, but if the id says they’re 21, then they’re of drinking age, but still lose the bet, so the clerk gets the money. ID is passed, and money is paid.

See my reply to Krafty Kactus.

It could be constructed as an attempt at bribery. You see, when you bribe somebody, you can’t just go up to them, and tell them “Here’s a hundred bucks, look the other way”. Because, what if you’re an undercover cop? You need to offer the money in a way that offers plausible deniability. So, the next step could be to show a poorly counterfeited id that says you’re only 21, with the implied subtext being, “I’m giving you 100$, but in exchange you don’t look too closely at my false id”. Of course, there’s always a risk that the person you’re trying to bribe doesn’t catch on.

It isn’t sustainable. No clerk will take the bet more than once. Also, the clerk doesn’t have to take the bet to interpret it as bribery and call the cops on you. In addition, there’s the risk of the clerk simply not honoring the bet.

Mistaking the map for the territory. The argument isn’t that bitcoin is bad because it’s used to buy drugs, it’s bad because the network would choke if it even had to handle the economic activity of a moderately sized town.

“Accidentally” CC your reply to the mailing list with everybody in it.

I though the idea was to deface the post to show that you disagree with it.

What did you have mind?

I figure a ban of targeted advertisement would look like “The ads are only allowed to change once a day, and everybody during said day sees the same ads”. Whereas currently, each time you load a website, there’s an impromptu auction to sell the ad spots. (Advertisers don’t actually have to pay until you click their ad). So there would be less incentive to keep the user constantly engaged, as it would be enough if the user just visits regularly.

I’ve been trying to remember the name of this number. Thanks.

No, I did not have to do that. Why do you ask? Just saying that the sentiment I’ve seen expressed by open source developers towards gen AI ranges from cautious optimism to banning it. I’ve yet to see any open source team express that gen AI has been useful to them.

Each time the team behind an open source project talks about AI, it’s carefully optimistic at best. But more frequent are news of AI being banned.

Eh, it depends on context.

If you do the 1st one, then most companies likely wouldn’t bother with such algorithms anymore.

They’ll likely run out of money soonish.

Think buying an apartment on credit vs renting it. The apartment bought on credit you’ll eventually own, but not the rented one. So assuming you need an apartment, buying on credit can easily be the better decision.