I am actively researching this friction and others like it. I would love it if you happened to have recommendations for literature that 3rd parties can use to corroborate your experience (I’ve found some, but this is harder to uncover than I expected as I’m not in the field)
This appears to coincide with the rapid rise of my wealthier friends taking extended holidays in Croatia. It wasn’t the cool thing to do, now suddenly it’s a must-see place. I didn’t get the memo about that, apparently. I wonder if it’s having an impact or if it’s just a local phenomena that feels far larger to me
Not to mention that we really are much more similar to chimps than they’re giving us credit for. If we ate a relatively low calorie, high protein diet, and maintained an active lifestyle, we’d all be pretty damn muscular and lean. Not roided out muscular, but far more so than I think the average person expects. Our body composition is significantly determined by relatively near-zero fitness demands in modern life and an overabundance of the wrong kinds of calories
As Bitcoin increases in value, the reward for breaking into wallets grows. Satoshi’s is the ultimate target here, followed by wallets used to burn currencies. Some of these look like they’d only be brute forceable and that takes more time and energy than we think is plausible, but I suspect people will find the system isn’t as secure as expected in some weird and wacky ways as this bounty grows.
Although, I wonder if emptying the wallet is actually harder than breaking in, in some ways. Let’s say you get into Satoshi’s wallet (or they still have access), how do you move anything without spooking the entire market?
I have been thinking of a project extremely similar to this for a totally different purpose. It’s lovely to see something like this. Thank you for sharing it, inspiring
I’ve been thinking about building precisely that sort of tech tree for a while, then extending it forwards in time to see if we can guess at how to work backwards from hypothetical technologies to where we are or if we can see obvious gaps
I really like what they’re going for but I’m disappointed in the outcome (so far). Then again, Apple has always managed to have a glaring oversight in design somewhere — “just hold your phone differently!”
In my experience it’s one or the other: attend all the lecturers and nullify the need to study more than that attendance and some specific exam revision if they drop hints or don’t attend but do the readings. I think a lot of being a successful student is cutting through all the duplicative work that gets thrown your way.
If we’re talking strictly about producing energy, yes, but this isn’t a method for more efficient or desirable solar energy production. This is an attempt to recreate the biomanufacturing processes of plants, so that we can use solar energy and rain to synthesise desirable organic compounds in situ. If we can do that, then it’s very exciting that we’ve blown plant efficiency out of the water before, because it means we should be able to do it in this domain too.
Where can one reliably learn about rare earths in the supply chain, refining abilities, what’s actually important for which tech, etc? I feel like I read very different views on this stuff all the time at different levels of granularity.
Having recently walked away from that exact situation miraculously unscathed (the teenage drunk drivers also managed to walk away somehow), that’s an interesting insight into the type of injury I avoided. Grim, scary, but very interesting. Glad you recovered.
Yes. Adversity is only good for development if it’s a strong enough signal to require growth while also being within the range of adaptability, relative to your environment (support system, resources, etc.).
A given event might wipe out Child A, might cause adaptation in Child B, and might be within the recoverable range but above the adaptive threshold for Child C. The reliable path to growth is small but sufficient challenge, response, adaptation and recovery, repeat as frequently as is beneficial.