I just have to say it: This is one GOD DAMN good app. I've been using it for years and the only issue I have with it is that I've got to pay again to download it on my iPhone after switching from Android.
In a world full of free stuff, this is the only piece of paid software that makes my day better. They deserve this.
BH Liddell-Hart's Great Captains Unveiled is one of the better ones I've come across, if early 20th century British historical writing style doesn't bother you.
It makes sense to use AWS because it's convenient + cost-effective (maybe?) to setup a cloud server. It then makes sense to use their services because again it's convenient. Basically the simplicity of the platform get's you there and now all these other benefits are attractive because it's simple and works out of the box.
So what I think the strategy to do would be to solve a basic problem that gets everyone to your platform and then start adding services to it.
Amazon started the cloud server as a business model because they needed a way to monetise all the additional infrastructure they had lying around on the off seasons. People started using it which gave them insight into the other problems users had and they went about solving those.
Great, that's exactly our opinion. I would like to share a link where we have conceptualised it. If you are okay to have a look, I can share the link for your feedback.
blockchain aims to solve the "Two Generals' Problem"[0]
short explanation in video[1]
On what the article says, transactions not relying on the first bitcoin blockchain are more vulnerable to 51% attacks[2].
Though if that many big corps joined, they could achieve a well established, attack-proof consensus relatively fast -
- this probably is bad news[3] for Bitcoins' blockchain "ambitions" which is considered by many a solution to de-centralize the "internet" or services depending on third parties.
[0] In computing, the Two Generals Problem, is a thought experiment meant to illustrate the pitfalls and design challenges of attempting to coordinate an action by communicating over an unreliable link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem
Round robin is trivially DOS'd . also, sharing your private finance data with your competitors is not an economic efficiency.
Bitcoin isnt good for very much, it's mostly just useful for value transmission and censorship resistance. You're new to blockchains and don't know that, so you intend to blockchain all the things. Which is a way more extreme view.
How is it trivially DOS'd? You don't need to share all your private data just the data about transfers using the system which isn't going to be particularly sensitive unless you are in a bad way financially and will be worth it to minimize the amount of settlements required of your business.
So you're telling this forum that the innovation here is round robin signing of network state.(not even a decent trusted consensus system like raft) I can't imagine that any halfway competant programmer in here will buy this as anything more than a trivial code construction.
Here's what will happen to your database: it'll drop the blocks and revert to a message passing infrastructure. Which is fine and good - but not in any way related to a blockchain.
Does anyone ever feel like star wars became mainstream all of a sudden? I mean a few years back mist of my friends would've laughed at me when I brought it up. Now everyone can't wait to see it! What happened??
Lucas made the prequels to wow starry-eyed kids, and kids grow up to be nostalgic adults. That move, more than any other, is why Disney laid out 4 billion dollars for the franchise. They plan to sell to those kids, and their kids, and so on until there's not a dime left to be made.
I think Lucas got ripped off, frankly. Disney is going to make their money back on the movies alone.
I don't think Star Wars has been not mainstream since the eighties. There's a lot of deep-nerd stuff around the games, the licensed properties, etc., but the movies are pretty foundational to modern culture--in the United States, at least. (A good friend of mine uses them as an analogy to how Americans approach politics. "Everybody loves Star Wars, but Americans are too afraid to be Jedi.")
Massively popular cartoons and games, as well as aggressive cross-promotion and merchandising, have kept the franchise in the public eye since the sequels started.
Software isn't just eating the world, it's eating our lives. I think that this is going to become much worse the more intrusive the "IOT" becomes. Being able to manage our attention will become as significant as managing our health.
I don't understand the general social disparagement of professional athletes. They have been through a filter the likes of which most of the rest of us have never experienced. Their skills and abilities are evaluated ruthlessly at every level -- if they come up short, they are out. The ones who make it are the best of the best at what they do. For each of them there are thousands of little league, high school and college athletes who did not. The people who make it through are the ones who are not only naturally gifted physically, but absolutely passionate about playing their sport. You have to be in order to put in the work needed to reach this elite level.
"The ones who make it are the best of the best at what they do."
I don't think the "social disparagement of professional athletes" is with regard to a lack of skill at "what they do", but the sacrifice of what they don't, coupled with a view that what they've sacrificed for isn't actually important.
You can master something without taking it into extremes. It's more going through the ups and downs of learning and experiencing progress and lack thereof.
That seems like a somewhat inaccurate takeaway. A few of them "gave them back" because they didn't like the pressure and/or wanted to change their menu. Bourdain of course doesn't care much for them but he was the only one in the article that really took that attitude (and being a rebel is kind of his thing). Other chefs mentioned were devastated to lose them.
There are certainly some misgivings about the organization and process but it seemed like most of them still consider a 3-star to be the top honor in fine dining.
It's really a mixed bag. Michelin favors a certain type of place -- posh, traditional, French -- and doesn't know what to do with other cuisines. This could be OK if you are in France, or if you share that taste, but it doesn't translate well and doesn't serve many diners well.
"Michelin is usually one of the guidebooks I take with me when I visit France, although I tend not to use it much. In Paris, Patricia Wells and the Pudlo guide are better at pointing me to the kind of restaurants I like best; in the rest of the country, I prefer Gault Millau. Outside France, Michelin is all but useless — in most of Italy, you could probably find better restaurants by sticking a pin into a map than you could by following the guide, and while Gordon Ramsay’s supremely boring London flagship gets three stars, Fergus Henderson’s splendid St. John, a restaurant that visiting chefs head off to the second they land at Heathrow, has none."
New Shepard does not compete with Falcon 9 (or any 'real' launcher). It made a vertical hop to 100km, with a very light payload. It didn't come anywhere close to orbit (which is what Falcon 9 does).
In a world full of free stuff, this is the only piece of paid software that makes my day better. They deserve this.