They would certainly have to add that new data point to their analysis. :-)
I expect it moves the estimate down by less than the 100 ms record beat, though. That's how converging to a true minimum tends to work (at least, like I said before, in the purely statistical modeling sense which is never quite as strong as a detailed micro-model).
Unsure how either of my comments could be read as disagreeing with your point - both mention physics/micro-models being stronger than pure stats, but maybe in spite of your "The problem is" phrasing you only meant to amplify or only read quickly. That said, I can perhaps respond with something amplifying & clarifying of our shared skepticism of the pure statistics approach relative to something "more detailed" that might someday somehow help someone.
There are probably a half dozen micro-model effects even non-experts could rattle off that have "trended" over the decades from your shoes & surfaces to various aspects of population diet, young-in-life identification / more-optimized-maturation conditions and on & on. Statisticians call this a "non-stationary sampling process" meaning the independent & identically distributed (IID) assumption is at best a weak approximation and at worst totally misleading.
Ways to measure how much evidence there is that IID / other distributional assumptions are failing do exist { such as some of the ones here: https://github.com/c-blake/fitl/blob/main/fitl/gof.nim and referenced at the bottom of https://github.com/c-blake/bu/blob/main/doc/edplot.md (at the stage where one "plots / pools together multiple data points into some kind of "sample" with a "distribution") }. Sadly, few test such assumptions (which are rarely truly comprehensive anyway) and even small departures from modeling assumptions may lead to relatively large errors in estimates. E.g., the linked to Einmahl 2009/2010 research states this as an assumption to apply the ideas, but then shows no test of that assumption on the used data.
Couldn’t it be as simple as a face recognition unlock?
There’s an option on iPhone’s FaceID to require eyes open and looking at phone to unlock, but this might have been deselected. Or it could be subverted.
The Starlink satellites were not released into the correct orbit. SpaceX is using their ion thrusters to try to raise the orbit, but Elon Musk said this isn’t likely to succeed.
Could SpaceX use one satellite to push another?
This procedure would deliberately sacrifice the pushing satellite, but maybe give the pushed satellite enough additional delta-v to reach a working orbit.
Once they are deployed, they aren’t connected to each other anymore and there is no way to perfectly align two satellites again. I’m assuming they don’t even have RCS they could achieve accurate translational movement with. If you push one satellite against another and they aren’t perfectly aligned so the thrust vector goes trough the combined CG, they will start to spin immediately.
I agree that alignment would be a massive challenge. There aren’t even cameras on the satellites to help with visual alignment. There’s also the possibility of damage from the pushing or the ion exhaust, more so if the imperfect alignment sets them spinning
The conclusion, if my understanding is correct, is that it is, but other cryptocurrencies may not be
Quote:
First, coins like Bitcoin, which are based on the proof-of-work algorithm, are likely more energy intensive than mainstream finance. (But note that this intensity seems to be declining with time.) Second, coins like Ethereum, which are based on the proof-of-stake algorithm, are likely (far) less energy intensive than mainstream finance.
So that’s what the data says. But somehow, I feel like this evidence will satisfy neither the crypto critics nor the crypto advocates. And that’s why in the appendix, I add some obligatory speculation. But for now, let’s conclude with just the facts. To date, it seems clear that Satoshi’s claims about Bitcoin’s superior ‘efficiency’ have not come to fruition.
Have you heard about mining pools? I think the future of PoW coins is huge payment commissions and payment pools which make the commission acceptable, this is what needed to make Satoshi's claim a reality.
I think I understand how a mining pool works. How would "huge payment commissions and payment pools" reduce the high PoW energy costs which the research claims? (I won't say the theory in the original post is correct. I am agnostic about that, as it's a hard equation to resolve)
It's a not exactly a common name in Germany, but also not unusual. The owner family of BMW is called Quandt (with a slight spelling variation) for example.
I wonder if the average building even was 13 floors tall in 1899, particularly in South America which didn't have its "tall buildings boom" much later.
