Edit: whoops, the article ran against the dual 8-core version, not the 22-core one. Looks like $10,600 as tested, with the 500GB HD, 256GB RAM, and workstation graphics.
I've only met one transgender person. She was basically a dude wearing lipstick and high heeled boots. She was really nice, and I wanted to use her preferred pronouns, but it's really difficult to do so.
> I take issue with being held to a standard of somehow needing to "know" that ahead of time, and respect it, with no effort on the part of the woman in question.
I'd like to postulate that it's not just ahead of time. It's really hard to change your usage of he to she or him to her, when you are visually presented with a man. The brain doesn't easily change, so don't get mad when it doesn't change as fast as you want.
There seems to be a very vocal minority of trans people out there who are demanding a totally friction free experience to their life. These are the people people like Peterson get riled up.
I know two trans individuals, I address them by the correct pronouns probably 80% of the time if I'm being a little kind to myself. The other 20% they've been totally understanding. Anecdotal yes but I feel like this is the vast majority of trans people; they know it's out of the ordinary and respect that, and handle the inevitable slips with social grace.
In a very simplified way, proof of work is a way to roughly uniformily distribute the block generation "queue". In a network without identities how do you prevent someone creating hundreds of accounts to have a hundred times more chance to be next in line? You give them a hard problem, and now the odds of you being next in line is proportional to your computing power, which you can't multiply effortlessly.
Proof of Stake says that instead of distributing the work queue proportionally to the computing power you demonstrated to have, it does it proportionally to the amount of currency you have saved. It similarly prevents the attack where one could create infinite personalities to get in line, with different trade offs. In particular, beside the energy savings, it can be a much more scalable model, where you don't have to wait 10min in average for someone to solve the hard problem and instead you can know right away who are the next people eligible to generate the next blocks.
You can look at the block rewards and mining fees as interest on your investment. The "saved" part is interesting too - I've seen variations where you have to lock your stake for a longer period (trading rewards for liquidity) or where you have to "burn" an amount of stake, permanently taking it out of circulation to get a spot on the line.
The inflation rate and actual utility of the currency are important factors too - if most of the currency is already distributed and the inflation is low (thus block rewards are low), the richer don't get much richer. If the utility is high, redistribution occurs more naturally as well.
Perhaps the inflation is not low but there are other distribution mechanisms that distribute currency based on utility in a higher rate than block rewards (for example on steem, of all newly minted coins in a block ~5% goes to the block creator, ~65% goes to content creators, ~6% to commenters, ~17% to curators and 7% as interest to those that have commited their stake in a long term deposit).
But yeah, in the end it indeed is a factor which is one of trade offs I mentioned, but there are ways to combat it.
For block rewards you'd have to mine. In particular you'd have to have a server running a node joined in the network ready to generate a block whenever your number is called.
Not everyone would want to do that, so there's usually a mechanism to indicate you want to be eligible to do so, depositing your coins or similar.
That's for block rewards - nothing prevents a blockchain currency to be designed to generate inflation and add interest on everyone's investment - some do exactly that.
If it works as described, yes, but no more so than any other investment - and if the interest/profit on those coins are higher it will draw capital from other places, which will decrease the interest/profit on the coins.
The problem is in the details: how do you use this to reach consensus? How do you agree on a randomness source to picks the "winners"? How do you prevent people from mining multiple parallel histories, devolving the system into proof of work?
It absolutely matters. If a politician is just paying lip-service to a principle, he's definitely not going to fight for it. He's just going to do what he wants to do, and try to give the appearance of caring about the issue.
The person who actually believes what he espouses will actually work for that goal.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of politicians are the former rather than the latter, hence the popular perjorative "RINO". Maybe there's a similar thing on the Democrat side, but I can't think of one right now.
Define "easily" as used in this context. Easy is a product of whom your enemy is.
Is your enemy your ISP? If that's the case, I don't think it's "easy" for them; they would have to pay Digital Ocean or Amazon to get your data, and probably isn't really that valuable to them.
Is your enemy the MPAA? If that's the case, I still don't think it's particularly "easy" for them. Unless you are a MAJOR pirate distributor, the extra effort(money) to track you down isn't worth it.
Is your enemy the NSA or the FBI? If that's the case, then yes, it's trivially easy for them to Subpoena digital ocean or amazon to get your data, but similarly they can use techniques on PIA to get your data too.
In the end, it comes down to whom you trust with your data. And whether you want a managed VPN service, or are willing to put up with the inherent problems of maintaining your own system. will PIA sell your surfing habits to advertisers, will DO sell your surfing habits to advertisers? Who gives faster speeds?
I agree overall, but PIA has may not be the best example, as they have been shown to not keep any data that could be subpoenaed[1]. One nice thing about running your own (if your client machine is on Linux) is being able to use Wireguard[2], which is quite a bit faster than OpenVPN, for example.
Never heard of Wireguard before, but it looks really cool, especially the mosh-like roaming. However, I found this warning on their website.
WireGuard is not yet complete. You should not rely on this code. It has not undergone proper degrees of security auditing and the protocol is still subject to change.
Amazon's not in the business of terminating accounts the second a copyright request comes in. They want to build trust with their customers that they won't just turn you off on a whim.
I can vouch for this, from the other side. We routinely catch AWS hosts running password-guessing bots against our login forms. Emailing abuse@amazonaws.com doesn't seem to lead to reductions in our fail2ban and custom tarpit logs.
Claiming someone is brute forcing your logins doesn't have the legal weight of a DMCA notice. Why should they do anything? DMCA provides provisions for counter notice and legal remedies for false filings.
This is always a battle - for big operations you've got people farming out signups using stolen data to random 'buddies' on the other side of the world with the dark hat team ready to stand up outbounding traffic as fast as they can get a processor to execute it on, not to mention the hosts that get cracked automatically..
That's their official response, and rightly so it should be. Talking from experience, I've had many requests for different websites I run and almost all were frivolous. Some content I took down anyways, and some I explained to Amazon why it was frivolous. They've never cancelled any of my services or even threatened to.
Not all hosts are US-based, though; some hosts in other countries prefer to get a court order in their own jurisdiction before taking action against a customer.
This exact thing happened to me on DO; I got an email from them (also automated) telling me to cut it out our have my account terminated. I was traveling overseas and had no other option for watching my shows, so I switched to PIA.
FYI MPAA can and will go after you even for a small site with 100 of visitors daily. They went after me, tried to sue me, got my servers shut down and sent lots of scary emails to my personal email.
It's easy for anyone who can do traffic analysis on your traffic, eg your ISP and mass surveillance perpetrators.
And whoever your ISP decides to sell or give this data to.
They can of course see the individual packets and their exact timings. This can be trivially correlated with egress traffic from your VPN gateway to other ISP affiliated networks or web properties. And since it's your private gateway, there is no other traffic mixed in.
I believe the more preferred way is to be explicit by 'using std::cout;' for each and every function you want to "shorten/cleanup"