This fork could have still been prevented even if only UTXO were stored.
The problem behind the fork here is that 950 out of the last 1000 blocks had the block version set to 3, but didn't follow through with their promise. By setting the block version to 3, they were voting to transition to BIP66, meaning that once 950 of the last 1000 blocks vote for version 3, then no more nonstandard DER signatures will be allowed in blocks.
Even if you prune spent transactions (so only keep UTXO) you still keep the block version, so you can still measure if 950/1000 blocks vote for version 3. And you are still able to verify that new blocks don't have nonstandard DER signatures.
Interesting point re:commercial usage. If a user of a social media site posts an image not for their own profit, it's still contributing to the social media network's profits in that it's keeping users engaged with the site while the social network runs ads.
> This is not true. European copyright law would not allow individual member states to introduce exceptions beyond what it explicitly permits.
Maybe I did not make myself clear: a country that does not have a restriction on freedom of panorama will not have a restriction after those rules. This only tries to harmonize the restrictions between the countries that have such restrictions already.
> If the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage?
Because it's very annoying to have to consult local laws to figure out if you can use a picture or not. The idea is that you end up with three levels: free to use, free to use for non commercial use, restricted.
A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those (for instance it would be not permitted to say "restricted but free for professional magazines" or something like that)
Before you get your pitchforks out: this is a better start for the discussion than the apple-touch-icon mess from the past. They attempted to extend the standard in an almost intended way, but it turns out that it was not really ever considered well enough for this.
There is a discussion on the mail thread about how to deal with this issue properly. This is for a preview version of Safari and this is not the final specification.
The frustration is targeted at Apple, because someone there likely made this decision... The support was likely already written, and expressly removed, because Apple makes Thunderbolt monitors. Not to mention that Apple is known for it's wide profit margin, so any cost/benefit analysis is less meaningful in that regard.
I'm not sure where you think said frustration should be directed.
Rather than speculating on what Apple did internally, I think the real question is whether Apple advertises DisplayPort 1.2 support, since this feature is part of the DP 1.2 spec. So far I can't find anything about this on their product pages. If that's the case it's basically users demanding features that were never put into the specs of a product.
The Mini DisplayPort Connector is a small form factor connector designed to fully support the VESA DisplayPort protocol. It is particularly useful on systems where space is at a premium, such as portable computers or to support multiple connectors on reduced height add-in cards.
You've been down-voted, probably because this assertion seems somewhere between weird and offensive to most people here, but I'm genuinely curious as to why you believe it.
This is particularly relevant to HN because most of the people here are interested in innovation, and innovation comes from precisely deviating from the standards of society. As Henry Ford famously remarked, "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."
This is the reception that innovators of all kinds get, and currently men's dress is incredibly restricted. We aren't quite stuck in Victorian days, but the diminishment of acceptable fashion choice for men in the past 200 years has been huge. In 1800 a man could still wear colourful clothing, jewelry, and makeup. Fifty years later, a man could wear clothes that would shock no-one if seen on the street today, and nothing else.
I don't quite buy "the Enlightenment" as the whole answer, or even part of the answer, but there is no doubt that cultural shifts around that time had the effect of putting all men in uniform clothing. Think about that for a minute: women are allowed to wear almost anything today. Men are given a tiny number of acceptable choices, and no one much minds. I'm considered extravagant because I sometimes wear a bright red blazer to the theatre, which would be permitted if I were gay, but when I show up with my girlfriend it gets me insulted.
200 years ago men who were a hell of a lot more manly than me wore far more extravagant clothing and no one batted an eye (except maybe a few women who thought they were particularly attractive dressed like that.)
This is a lousy situation for straight men in the modern world: we deserve to be more than uniformed ciphers in the public eye, and rejecting society's judgement of what looks nice is a necessary step to take, just as rejecting society's judgement of what suitable entertainment is was necessary to the radio and film industry, rejecting society's judgement of what suitable travel technology is was necessary to the automobile and aircraft industry was, and so on. And you better believe that conservatives were frequently strongly against those innovations as well.
Innovation is driven by people with the courage to reject society's judgement and replace it with their own, and we should honour that courage, not denigrate it.
> I have come to believe it because I have come to realize that it is the only notion of "nice" that has real utility.
Utility means that something produces (directly or indirectly) satisfaction for the person making the decision. Doing what society judges as nice has instrumental utility, in that it can help you get better responses from society, which either can produce utility for you directly or help get others to do things which produce utility for you.
Doing what pleases yourself -- including aesthetically as in favoring what "looks nice" to you -- has direct and immediate utility, however.
Both are "real" utility. Which is greater utility will vary considerably.
Put it this way, I find that what other people think about me has more impact on my life than what sort of cloth is hanging from my body.
I think that anyone who actually stops to consider this, actually weighs how their dress effects how the rest of society interacts with them, will arrive on the same conclusion (unless they have some serious issues to work out). If cloth honestly has more of an effect on you how other people treat you, you've probably got a disorder.
Which is a testament to its power, since a valid reason broke your brain's entire sense of "reasonable." You don't get it because you can't get it, you simply don't have the cognitive capacity for the idea, or else you would have allowed for it to make some sense, even if it didn't appeal to you.
> What would benchmarking say the slowest part of rustc is? Typechecking/semantic analysis, llvm, or something else.
I feel like there are some projects out there that trigger things with bad runtime complexities in Rust. I had to stop using the piston image library because compiling it takes 15 seconds every time, which I'm not in for.
Compiling racer currently needs 2GB of RAM for no good reason.
So I'm pretty sure there is ample room for optimizations.
> A miner could put no transactions in a block, and still get the 25 bitcoin block reward, but if they do that, they are hurting confidence in the bitcoin network
I don't think that's true at all. Even if some would not clear any transactions people would still be okay with that for as long as the rest does. And there are definitely some zero transaction blocks being minted.