Note how the Guardian headline has seamlessly converted the report's wording “display one or more characteristics that signal their potential vulnerability” to "are financially vulnerable". I think that's self-evident distortion, just dropping the "potential" bit (let alone "signal").
Then again "vulnerable" is an extremely popular word in the UK media this year, and nobody's ever precise about what it means, so maybe it's all meaningless, I don't know.
They could, though then there would be more trust issues about who hosts and controls the database. A database of which every participant keeps a copy, and with strong guarantees about consistency between the copies, has pretty obvious attractions.
I am definitely not saying blockchain is the only or even the best way to achieve that! Just that this helps explain its appeal
You miss the point about trust. The trust issue that blockchain addresses for big banks is not "I'm worried you're a scam that will disappear with all my money". It's "I'm worried that you've not got every single number exactly right and there will diaagreements". Hence it takes 2-3 days in the US to settle a simple financial trade, to allow for multiple batch reconciliations to verify that the information that each party holds about the trade matches up. Using a shared, distributed database to store all this information, instead of every party keeping their own copy, has the potential for colossal efficiency gains. That's why big institutions are interested in blockchain.
The reason people build those models with those assumptions isn't some great conspiracy, it's merely because under those assumptions it's actually feasible to build models. Building working mathematical models with imperfect information and imperfect competition and so on is a hell of a lot harder, mostly we don't know how to do it. Conspiracy theory is intellectually lazy.
Well the original article headline doesn't talk about anyone "wanting" anything at all -- I don't know, why would Wired repost articles from Quanta, changing only the headline?
IntelliJ often shows latency, but it's not "slow", it's doing a stupendous amount of work behind the scenes and building an incredibly rich model of your code and your application.
If you're not getting more out of IntelliJ than vim, then sure, vim will make you happier. But also then you're not getting from IntelliJ what it's trying to provide.
I can't provide a funny story or eulogy, but have a scary one... "Microsoft Lync" [item 10 on the list right now] is not dead, it's aaaalllliiiiivvveeeee...
Those of us who work in the nightmare planes, where Microsoft products are mandated, once hoped that Microsoft's "Skype for Business" would bring us a bit of non-corporate real-world better-because-it-had-to-compete-on-its-own-merits product to save us from the eternal pain of Lync.
But no, it turned out that "Skype for Business" REALLY IS just Lync, with only two changes.
1) rebranding
2) somehow, despite changing almost nothing, they managed to break copy-and-paste, it doesn't work reliably any more
Oh god yes, the Guardian was the last newspaper I read regularly (well that and the FT sometimes) but I gave it up because I just couldn't take the horrible whingey whiny columnists any more.
It's got worse though, now seems like they won't publish a piece unless it has a snide reference to "neoliberalism", or some comment about evil bankers causing financial crises, or some such, no matter how off-topic it is.