I get what you're trying to say, but the paperwork isn't just to not get arrested. It's also to make sure your rocket doesn't flatten a building when it comes down uncontrolled, doesn't hit an airplane on the way up, doesn't crash into any other spacecraft in orbit, and doesn't turn into yet another piece of untracked space debris cluttering Earth orbit.
That stink has been etched into my mind ever since a night ten years ago when I spent an hour waiting for someone at a Shanghai subway station that was within wafting distance of a stinky tofu stand. I still have no idea how that stall owner avoided getting lynched by half the commuters that had to pass through his cloud of putrid miasma.
Twitter won't automagically stay online. A complex system needs dedicated and experienced engineers to maintain it, apply updates and troubleshoot issues, and that's if you're not actively developing new features.
So it will coast for a while before the wheels come off. Maybe performance will degrade, maybe media stops loading or your timeline won't refresh. Maybe none of that happens and a critical system deep down fails and it just stops. But Musk has all but ensured that Twitter in its current form cannot continue to function.
When you visit Persepolis, you can rent a VR headset and see certain parts of the site reconstructed in VR. It's really impressive and drives home the scale of what was built.
He is free to voice his displeasure at sharing a platform with an ill-informed blowhard spouting dangerous bullshit out of every orifice. Spotify has no obligation to platform Rogan, but they choose to tie their flag to his mast, and I for one am happy I switched to a different platform.
The reason it's "better" for international transfers is because it has decided to ditch all legal and financial safeguards that have been introduced, often with good reason, in regular banking. From a technical standpoint, crypto adds nothing to the process that a centralized system can't provide cheaper, faster and safer.
Additionally, a hedge is only as good as its performance in case of a worst-case scenario. If the stock market takes a dive or war breaks out, crypto will dive just as hard - same as it had done in the past.
You hit on a point that bothers me in all the discussions of cryptocurrency. Not having access to banks is a real issue; quicker bank transfers a less critical, but still real concern. Neither of these need cryptocurrency to be solved, and neither of them are solved by cryptocurrency; so why are they used as arguments?
Concrete example: I have an app on my phone that allows me to instantly transfer funds from my bank account to other people using a QR code with no transaction cost. That was part of the promise of cryptocurrencies and is still trotted out as a potential benefit - but this system does not use cryptocurrency at all and has none of its downsides.
If a problem is solved without cryptocurrency, and without cryptocurrency's crippling problems, cryptocurrency clearly wasn't the answer to begin with.
If there is an incident because an employee was sloppy, the fault lies with the hiring process, the evaluation process for this employee, or with the process that put four eyes on each implementation. The employee fucked up, they should be removed if they are not up to standards, but putting the blame on them does not prevent the same thing from happening in the future.
A Python fork bomb was my first major achievement in college. Four lines of code took out a server. I'd like to claim it was a great achievement in hacking but nope, just trying to grok concurrency and failing hard.
The free market can work - if certain safeguards are in place to ensure the race to the bottom doesn't negatively impact either the safety and suitability of the products and services produced, or the wages and benefits paid to workers. Remove those and you end up with misery.
They are far from 90% of the quality. The production standards at Lego are decades ahead of anything a Chinese company has produced so far in terms of tolerances, durability and quality control.
It won't teach the perpetrator not to commit the same crime again. Malice only breeds malice.
If it is deterrence, you're too late as the act has already been done; you may argue that it might stop others from committing it, but since this was a deeply irrational crime reasonable consequences didn't factor into it.
Making the victim feel better? Seeing their attacker hurt may seem cathartic on a visceral level but it won't undo the damage.
Making you feel better? That wouldn't be justice, that'd be sadism.
Torturing criminals to "make them feel the same pain" is a visceral response that brings brief gratification, but it's not a solution to anything.
iPiece?