Not sure if you mean why in the movie or why they couldn’t in real-life
in the movie, they bring up the mission requirements at low altitude render a certain tech of the new gen planes useless under the scenario because of its dependence on radar iirc
in real life the decision behind avoiding 5th is because most of the information about the planes are still highly classified, ie there is no full feature spec of 5th gen planes available, so no way united states military would let them film a plane
Venmo isn't instant. Send yourself more than 15k. If that goes through, try to send it back.
Sure, the row in the database is instant though.
I agree it is a feature for a bank to be able to undo mistakes. The problem happens when a bank commits the mistakes and refuses to acknowledge it.
This is akin to all of us submitting to google and gmail, its great unless our account gets flagged by an algorithm by mistake. No mistake, i would be screwed.
In those organizations, I highly doubt microservices or monolithic decisions would have made a difference.
Disorganized management won't magically get fixed if the root problems of ASAP, priority, techinal debt, etc features aren't fixed.
The fact that the organization was trying to combine two large monolithic codebase into one is an obvious smell that technical decisions are made by someone non-technical.
I think your points were valid when cryptocurrency first started, but now it's now a bit too entrenched to be easily squashed.
1) Many miners use renewable energy. China uses a bit of coal for mining, but recent news (or FUD) has most miners scrambling for "greener" energy. Bitcoin's energy usage is talked about quite a bit, but doesn't seem to really dissuade.
2) If Bitcoin had been started by a large organization versus grassroots - this likely would have been squashed. Instead, considering now how widespread it is, and how many politicians own crypto, along with Coinbase being affluent enough to lobby against this - this scenario now seems unlikely. However, I do agree, there will be a fight for monetary control and it may be ugly, but ultimately cryptocurrency will survive in some way or another.
3) Yes - in the beginning, the vast majority of crypto in was used for illegal reasons. Monero is probably a better use case as it's untraceable. Bitcoin has a public ledger making it much easier to track. However, the percentage of overall transactions (crypto) for illegal activities has decreased over time.
USDC is probably the best bet of what you're imagining of a crypto pegged to the US Dollar. It also allows for a blacklist of addresses known in illegal activities.
With all that being said, DeFi may prove to be a larger use case, as it's now possible to create "virtual" banks that run on code and no humans, etc.
It's definitely used as a signal in finance. There is a prestige of working at certain shops that carry over in your career. Similar to how it doesn't matter what you studied at Harvard, just that you studied at Harvard. I'm not saying it's right, just that it exists lol.
Business schools also acknowledge this when deciding who to accept/reject.
I would bet the inverse. If the majority of tactics is spearheaded by one person from 1964 - that probably means there's a lot of innovation.
I found reading Boyd's biography, so much effort was made before decision makers would use his tactics, even when they were clearly superior.
Even board game like Go and Chess have experienced new and novel tactics from AI despite being much older, with lower barriers to entry. Inversely, dogfighting is new and the barriers to entry are so high its unlikely its close to optimal.