There is a cost associated with collective bargaining as well as benefits. While most of these costs (though not all) are carried by the employer to the benefit of the employee; I don't think dismissing these concerns by calling them "common anti-union talking points" improves the honest discussion that should be had by people considering collective bargaining.
The vote will definitely demonstrate how seriously the employees are considering unionization but, in my experience, there are a certain sub-set of people that constantly push for unionization, regardless of the companies commitment to employees.
It's just a tiny language feature, removing the parenthesis is not the point of the template literal. FWIW, I like the way it looks for styled-components:
No this is simply bad implementation. As has already been mention, for internet services that also have websites for those services the www. subdomain makes total sense.
I have to second this. CouchDB has a much better native interface than Mongo (pure HTTP/REST JSON) and automatic syncying.
Honestly, most of the time I think the real problem is developers not being able to cognitively handle changing from a SQL style declarative syntax to a functional map/reduce style syntax. It takes higher-order thinking, but the results are dramatically better.
SQL is declarative. There's no sense in which functional is higher-order than declarative.
When you write map/reduce, you're doing a mix of functional and probably imperative down the line.
Putting syntactic sugar aside, it's hard to beat SQL in tersity, because you're talking to a big query engine which can do JOIN/WHERE/GROUP BY/HAVING/etc.
Thank you. I always getting a little angry at these "We should..." posts that are posted by a modern philosophe who has some idealized way of seeing the world and is more than happy to limit other peoples choices to maximize that vision.
I tend to agree with you they tend to be academic architecture students who design "machines for living" which they think the "working class" will enjoy living in.
Brew is broken by design - it installs programs in /usr/local without requiring root permissions. You cannot in fact run it as root, it won’t let you.
I’ll wait for the home brew maintainers to tell me I’m wrong and that their approach is perfectly fine, despite being at odds with the standards set by every commercial and open source operating system on the planet.
Why the obsession about energy consumption from mining bitcoin? It is because many people still consider it imaginary or non-productive? It is because, unlike many other markets, it is fairly straightforward to find upper and lower bounds for consumption?
Well, if this sort of system is going to be the future of finance, isn't the environmental impact of it something we should consider? Especially, when we hear about old inefficient power pants coming back on-line to fulfill the new demand created by cryptocurrencies.
Edit: Don't the mining costs basically exponentially increase as the supply of bitcoin runs out as it's an exponential decay? Being bounded by an exponential function isn't a good sign.
In response to your edit, no. There is no set cost to mine a bitcoin. Energy is expended in trying to solve the problems the generate bitcoins. Once bitcoins run out, this is still true as instead of directly creating new bitcoins, miners will still be rewarded with the transaction fees connected to whatever block they main.
The difficulty of solving a problem to generate coins is dynamically and automatically adjusted such that it takes about 10 minutes. What this means is that if you had a total of 800 nuclear reactors dedicated to exclusively powering ASIC systems to mine Bitcoins it'd take, on average, just as long as it would if your total electricity consumption was the equivalent of one guy running a low power laptop using a hand crank or bike generator.
So all the electricity consumption represents is demand. As demand increases for bitcoin, so does this price. When the price goes up this means you can afford to pay more for electricity and still show a profit. When demand goes down for bitcoin you need to pay less and less for electricity to maintain profitability.
What will happen when no new coins are being generated is that the reward for each block mined will decrease. This will mean you receive less money for mining a block and thus can not afford to pay as much for energy and remain profitable. The net effect being that we'll see a decline in energy usage as miners running on thinner margins are pushed out of profitability.
The dynamic balancing is actually quite a clever design.
Minting of new coins is an exponential decay (hence the mining metaphor, gold becomes rarer to find as mining continues). There's also transaction fees which are based on supply/demand for blockchain operations.
I think people looking into it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of obsession. The incentive here was likely to publish something (rather than an emotional attachment to some aspect of bitcoin).
That Bitcoin are probably little more than coal-fired Beanie Babies likely does contribute to message board attention.
Everything only has value that people assign it. I think paying some thousands of dollars for a handbag that has a certain label, or paying $1000 for a phone with a certain label, or so on is completely irrational. But in a market economy, I don't get to decide - the market does. And there's no irony using dollars in that example, as once again they face the same problem. The value of a dollar changes quite regularly against other currencies and it's just a market supply:demand reaction. Should the petrodollar end, I'd expect to see the dollar plummet globally. Great for our exports if our economy doesn't go down alongside the dollar!
51% attacks in Bitcoin are not a real risk for two reasons. The first is that it'd be completely illogical. If there were a group of miners able to work together to generate the resources sufficient to obtain a 51% attack on a major coin, they'd already be printing massive amounts of money completely legitimately. If they started trying to use that to do things like double spend, that'd ruin all of this because of the second point.
Bitcoin is decentralized. And if one branch becomes broken because of something like a 51% attack, it is trivial to fork it and go. Bitcoin Cash being the obvious example of this, and that was over something that lacked a unanimous consensus - nobody is going to want to stay on a fork that's been compromised.
Ok, wink, because the blockchain I’ll play along and pretend there aren’t at least 12 people that could crash the entire thing one way or another if they wanted to.
They aren't even rare numbers, they are entries in a ledger.
There's no technical limitation on how many bitcoin can be produced either, only the network consensus that a limited number will be produced. It's built into the software and unlikely to change, but it isn't fundamental, it's part of the consensus.
No, it's not because people consider it imaginary or non-productive: it's because they consider it insufficiently productive for what it costs the globe and that the rewards are obviously localized while the costs are global.
It's quite a gimmick imo. The amount spent has no basis in what is needed, but simply chosen by multiplication of the guesswork of a person several years ago by the chaotic swings of the market.
It's also quite inefficient and even if it was chosen with some rationale basis, the idea of burning energy for years in the hope of providing a high enough bar to prevent a single tsunami of effort over the a brief period of time, less than a few hours and only required to match it, is one of the dumbest security ideas I've ever heard.
I'm not against cryptocurrency, not do I think it will fail in concept,
but I very much hope that PoS proves viable and will succeed this utter waste.
I think it's interesting because it allows you to quantify the impact of Bitcoin mining on energy consumption. What would we do with our resources if this was not a viable way to produce wealth? With the continuing decline of natural resources in the world, it's worth seeing what we as humans do with these resources from an academic perspective.
Also, I imagine a lot of people do indeed think that Bitcoin is imaginary or nonproductive. Arstechnica makes money off of readers viewing their articles, so content that validates an opinion or strikes controversy generally does well.
You’re being down voted, but this was a useful comment for me. Made me realize that there’s plenty of energy being spent to mine and handle other commodities too, e.g. gold.
Gold is generally a one-time investment though - you could smelt it into a bar at a high initial energy cost, but after that, transferring it is free. As opposed to BTC which apparently costs 300 KWh per transaction.
I know Dev shops don't like processes and forms, but that "checklist" is exactly that. It simply shows that processes and procedures are tools that are useful if that use can be limited.
It's a means of formalizing the deployment before automating it. Which makes sense, when automating you need to understand what you're trying to automate first.
