I don't think so. It's not like we have a branch of the military dedicated solely to maintaining the dominance of the USD. It protects our national security interests as a whole. The fact that it also scares everyone into using the dollar is just a bonus.
And while there are police dedicated to investigating financial crimes involving dollars today, we would still have them. They'd just be investigating crimes involving BTC.
> Bitcoin replaces these things with servers and decentralization.
This is totally absurd. We would still need police and military even if the USD stopped existing and we switched over to Bitcoin. You cannot replace them with servers because servers can't protect a nation or enforce laws.
> The fact they do other things is not important.
It is important, because it means they must exist anyway. So it makes no sense to factor in their cost if the cost would still need to be paid regardless of which financial system we use.
> The question is will there be a way to mine more difficult problems using less power. That is the only way bitcoin power usages stops growing (slowly).
That's not how it works. The whole point is to spend power (work).
If there was some breakthrough that allowed finding hashes with 10x less electricity, then the network wouldn't burn 10x less electricity. It would instead find 10x more hashes.
I did a quick search and it appears the law sets a minimum of about $20 per hour. So I guess DoorDash considers there to be about 40 minutes of "active time" per hour?
Or that a store would put it's vanilla ice cream in a separate case in the front and all it's other flavors in another in the back, instead of putting all it's frozen foods together in the same area for logistical reasons.
Why is this important to maintain? People have been complaining about this since the beginning, but I've never seen anyone actually articulate what the problem is.
Typically something like an elevator wouldn't be modeled with physics (mass, velocity, etc.) its movement would just be hardcoded. And of course games without a physics emulator wouldn't do that either.
My understanding of the patent is that two objects that are normally subject to physics (the player and a platform), when the player stands on an object the player's physics are disabled and the player's position is just copied from the object.
But, like, there's no way this hasn't been done before.
> The functionality seems at first glance to be a given for any game with a similar environment, but according to an observation by naoya2k, what makes Nintendo’s solution unique is that there are no physics working between Link and the dynamic object. Since both the character and object use physics, the most straightforward solution would be that Link moves together with the moving objects he is on top of as a result of physics (such as frictional force), but Nintendo apparently decided that what works better game-wise is Link being given the same movement that the object is performing, without any physics working between the two.
No way this is the first game to ignore the player character in physics calculations. I'm pretty sure in GTA3 you could climb onto the roof of a car and not slide around as the NPC drives and makes sharp turns.
I've never heard that term before, usually such coins are called shitcoins. And while I'm not denying SBF did that with his coin, he certainly didn't pioneer it; XRP has been doing it for years before SBF got into crypto.
Gather them up into a ball, then flatten them into a new wafer using a rolling pin.