"Author profile pages got a cleaner look, especially on mobile devices. Rest assured, we did not change your citation counts - at least not intentionally."
A fork has to be an idea about what Bitcoin is. This fork worked because some people saw Bitcoin as a settlement layer for a wider system of credits. Other people saw Bitcoin as a monolithic currency. The distance between those ideas caused the split.
Similarly ETH saw Ethereum as a beta prototype, and ETC saw it as a final contract. Those two ideas were each strong enough to support a community.
But this doesn't work arbitrarily. If I see Bitcoin as a currency primarily for selling ice cream cones and I fork IceCreamCoin, which responds to the seasonality of ice cream sales, there's no guarantee other people will see value in that idea, and mine blocks on my chain, or pay for coins transacted in those blocks on exchanges.
This is key to understanding cryptocurrency: there is no central reality. There are as many realities as you want. There are incentives to participate in some of them, but it's voluntary. You can walk away from whoever you want, and decide their money doesn't even exist for you, for any reason.
At the point BTC isn't under pressure anymore. Both forks have value because people give them value. But two forks are worth more than one because it was under immense pressure to scale. It could be that the growth was stunted until the split but I think the fork gave people confidence and became more than the sum.
Forking again will probably not relieve any pressure. It wouldnt take off.
Why bring age into the equation? That's quite discriminatory considering the creator of Ethereum is just 19 years old. Aside from that I'm 23 years old and have been developing software professionally in the past 8 years. Age isn't much of a factor anymore.
In the case of Vitalik, he was smart enough to enlist people more knowledgeable than him when organizing the Ethereum project. For example, he enlisted a PhD, Dr. Gavin Wood, to author the real white paper[0] (also known as the yellow paper). while it's possible that at 19 Vitalik could've been studying real CS long enough to work out the truely difficult parts of implementing his vision, it's highly unlikely and, to his credit, he was smart enough to know that. People who think they are the smartest people in the room rarely are. The really smart ones are the ones who realize this and are humble enough to seek the expertise of others.
> If you are doing business in california, you need to register a california llc
No, you can just register as a foreign LLC [1]. Notably, you do not have to disclose ownership to do business as a foreign, i.e. non-Californian, entity in California.
The requirement for qualifying to do business in a foreign State isn't based on whether you are doing business in said state, rather if the business has a physical presence in said State.
Unfortunately for Californians, if any managing member of an LLC resides in California the state requires the LLC to register as a foreign LLC and pay an $800 per year tax.
I quickly verified with some Chrome CTRL+F action on the "Who Is Hiring" HN thread described in this post that this is mostly accurate information per the data set. Many hat tips to you good sir, thank you.
I'm using an IoT button as an Amazon Now Dash Button. With the Dash button, I've realized there's more times I need my Tide detergent or a pack of condoms sooner than later and luckily I'm a programmer so the IoT button made this possible it's been quite handy.
Is the code for that open sourced? Perhaps my biggest frustration with Dash buttons was that they were only for specific products from specific brands and it would be great to hook an IoT button to ANY product of my choosing.
"Control", though, doesn't mean source code for the device, but rather, programmatic control over the endpoint (Lambda, etc). "You can code the button's logic in the cloud "
The first gen STM32 based Dash buttons were hackable[1], but Amazon changed to a different platform (ATMEL[2]) and locked them down.
Well it's more about the language being needlessly complicated and having 10x different ways to do the same thing, not to mention the language (Perl 5 that is - 6 is a different story) lacks essential concepts like object orientation and exceptions (you have to get "shims" like Moose or Try::Tiny from CPAN to fill those gaps). Why would you choose something like this instead of Python or Ruby?
>lacks essential concepts like object orientation and exceptions
Perl does OO without Moose. There is a tiny bit of boilerplate, but it's essentially bless() and 1 or 2 lines in the constructor.
Try/catch blocks are indeed an add on. The traditional pattern is more golang like, returning an error code, then using Carp or similar for stack traces.
>Why would you choose something like this instead of Python or Ruby?
That might be an interesting discussion for a large codebase, but for something limited in scope like this, I just don't see the problem.
