It's an EV, so what little nose it has is probably all crumple zone (as opposed to having a big ol' engine in the way. Popping the hood on most EVs is pretty funny, actually, because of how little there is under there.
I know nothing about automobile design, but the Smart Fortwo [1] seemed to solve this problem just fine (IIRC they had a very good NCAP safety rating).
It's not like someone paid $60 billion for a product the way you pay for bananas at the store. They invested a much smaller amount and essentially bought an option to acquire. And even if you don't believe the company's assets are worth the current valuation, an acquisition can still make sense if you believe that valuation will go up further. And if they actually do acquire, it will probably still not be in cash. They'll just be swapping stocks. That is essentially how all startup funding works. There is nothing strange about this. It merely reached new dimensions thanks to AI.
> The higher risk of GI bleeds is somewhat balanced by not having to take as many!
Unless I am missing something, the data really doesn't back that up. naproxen is much more longer lasting and has a higher chance of causing ulcers. Hence why its not over the counter in the UK and is prescribed with omeprazole to reduce the risk of issues.
I'm reading about this in more detail. Indeed, it's not the contact between the medication and the digestive tract that is the problem, but simply its presence in the blood stream. By inhibiting those certain enzymes, it reduces the production of prostaglandings, causes problems for the lining.
Naproxen will be around longer due to its long half-life, so it creates more opportunity for this problem.
Whenever its prescribed here, its paired with some sort of intestine protection medicine to stop it burning holes in your stomach/intenstines
Ibuprofen is much safer, so long as you eat with it.
Paracetamol is also safer, so long as you don't OD.
BUT! so long as you stay below 4 grams a day, you'll be safe. (yes yes, in some situations you can take double, but unless you are under supervision, thats asking for liver pain.)
That combo is naproxen/esomeprazole. The brand name is Vimovo, but they don't have a patent, so you can get it as a generic. To work, though, it has to be taken 30 minutes before food.
In the US, Aleve is the name-brand pill for naproxen, available in grocery stores next to everything else. I have a bottle of 160 gelcaps. Each pill is 220mg naproxen sodium or in parentheses 200 mg of naproxen. The advertised effect is 12 hours / all day, getting anywhere near 4g would only happen in a suicidal "swallow bottle of pills" situation.
GP meant 4g is the safe limit to paracetamol (hence "liver pain"). About 8 typical doses over 24 hours. It's little known amongst the general population, who have the occasional extreme of people taking double doses every few hours
One of the problems is that if you give it to kids with chicken pox it can cause complications. There was also some hints early in the pandemic that ibuprofen had a similar effect on covid-19. However as you link to, the data doesn't really support that view anymore.
No, Layer-2 systems only transfer cryptographically signed IOUs between nodes.
Settlement only happens when these IOUs are cashed out, and to cash out you need a transaction in the blockchain layer, so the point about latency still stands.
It is as much an IOU as the US Dollar was pre-1971. That is a pretty good image for Lightning/Bitcoins relationship. Lightning is the dollar with a guarantee that you can convert it to gold anytime you like by presenting it at the central bank. Very few people ever converted their USD to the underlying gold as a settlement transaction. The difference with lightning is, the government can't just rug-pull you and stop exchanging those paper bill IOUs - it is cryptograhpically secured that you can always convert to bitcoin. Since no one would consider exchaging dollars as settling in gold, lightning settlement is not tied to on-chain transactions.
Payment channels are possible on other networks as well. Once again, there is no inherent advantage to Bitcoin here. I know because I worked on one (https://raiden.network/). I also dealt with many of its failure modes:
- insufficient liquidity on intemediate nodes
- network partitions
- uncooperative nodes
- nodes that were liquidity sinks and forced other participants to bear the costs of deposits
- insufficient market makers
But more than anything: people do not want to use crypto for payments. It gives them no significant advantage over traditional credit/debit cards, it has no built-in solution for appeals or reversals and it forces them to learn a bunch of stuff to be minimally safe...
> Payment channels are possible on other networks as well
you are moving the goalpost in the discussion of this thread. User KaierPro said bitcoin would not be suitable because transactions takes to long, to which is responded lightning solves that. Now claiming that other cryptos can have layers-2 is correct, but adds nothing to the discussion or my initial point. Yes other chains have faster settlement times, and can have their respective payment channels - no one argued against that.
In practice, it has shown that it is only viable if adoption by number of nodes and TVL grew by orders of magnitude, and both are very unlikely to happen because - like I said - spenders have nothing to gain from it and no matter how much of the UX friction is solved, it will never be as easy as paying with credit card.
The only people who want to use Lightning are the ones who are invested in Bitcoin. Everyone else just want simple/safe access to a payment network.
You are just moving the goalpost again, without adding to the discussion. If spenders have nothing to gain because they prefer creditcards, then this argument applies to bitcoin/lightning, monero and all other cryptos all the same. Nothing to do with my initial point which was comparing lightning/bitcoin to monero.
> If spenders have nothing to gain because they prefer creditcards, then this argument applies to bitcoin/lightning, monero and all other cryptos all the same.
Most spenders will prefer credit cards, but there is a non-zero group where absolute privacy is important and monero is the better choice, therefore more valuable to them.
You are the one trying to make some false equivalency by saying that "bitcoin/lightning is good enough for most cases, therefore there is no need for monero".
The problem is that you are starting with the conclusion that you want (i.e, "Bitcoin is the best") and you are working backwards from this conclusion to make all sorts of rationalizations. Try going from the use case first and then let's see where the reasoning takes you. You will see that for pretty much ANY use-case, Bitcoin is not the answer.
It is splitting words. There is a settlement layer in lightning, which is presenting the preimage and unpeeling the onion HLTCs in reverse order. This happens at the latency of the network path, so usually less than a second. Bitcoin settling is usually tied to confirmation in the block, which lasts ~10minutes. Lightning might be IOUs, but ones that are fungible themselves and not tied to a specific debtor. Actual lightning-to-bitcoin cashout would probably not happen for everyday use, or at least not more often than you change bankaccounts in todays terms.
That's intellectually dishonest. It's like saying wire transfers or card payments are only valid after interbank settlements are finalized.
Bitcoin Lightning is cryptographically designed to be valid even if it's not yet settled on the main layer. It provides cryptographically sound mechanisms to overrule anyone that tries to "cheat". There is no mathematical way to cancel or double spend it, just like your dollars are valid when the transaction is committed in your bank's database although the money still technically hasn't left the other bank.
There are plenty of failure modes where you can lose your funds even if your wallet keys are not compromised. Try running a lightning node, make transactions worth more than a few hundred dollars and then leave your node offline for a few days. Or even more simply: ask yourself what happens to your funds if the disk on your lightning node goes bust and you don't have a recent backup.
THis is the issue, until its settled in the chain, then you are down to trusting the 2nd layer.
Anything offchain has a whole bunch of issues that are either naively or deliberately obscured by the fact that it _eventually_ writes to the blockchain. The exchanges that offer instant settlement are circumventing trust by doing the settlement for you. You get speed, but not security that they have done what they have said they have.
Well, to be fair to OP: small business and retailers are also not getting "real" money when they accept payment via credit cards from Visa/MasterCard.
To be honest I think the issue here is not due to speed of settlement, but layer-2 is not an acceptable substitute because it does not allow reversability. For the merchants it's good that they are getting the money right away, but most consumers will not dare to pay anything via layer-2 networks simply because they won't have any recourse in case they want to undo the transaction.
You can implement reverseability with a credit system, such as Visa/Mastercard. It should not be implemented in base layer or layer-2. It is basically an escrow system.
So now you are proposing to build yet-another piece to an already complex system just so we can justify the existence of your beloved blockchain in the first place.
How long it's going to take you to realize that even if we built everything you are asking for, we are STILL going to end up with a system that is not as capital-efficient as the status quo?
This is just untrue.
If someone cheats in lightning, and you demonstrate they cheated as you describe, then you get all of the locked BTC as a reward. This is on layer 1. Essentially you can easily prove your nonce was signed more recently.
I don't get that at all. He is taking the piss somewhat, but not in some cases he's sympathetic (warehouse twinks) sometimes disapproving (eugenicists )
The author outlines what they mean quite well. I think the point I would make is, when someone says "a ware house of twinks worshiping claude" you'd go "what in the living fuck are they doing that for?" not "oh that sounds cool"
Where I am in the UK its the "problem" kids that are seen out and about on their own.
I was freerange growing up in rural england, so I have no problem with the youth roving about. My wife is horrified by the idea, so our kids are somewhat coddled.
In the UK at least, children are objectively safer in every metric apart from getting fat. Kidnap, abuse, getting lost, car accidents are all way way down.
The interesting thing is that here you wouldn't be threatened with child services, You'd have to be pretty abusive or get your kid picked up by the police for the state to get involved. Mostly its pure classism, nice middle class kids aren't allowed to walk about on their own until they are 16, at least.
I think mentioning those safety metrics is really important because for any person, not just in the UK but in many countries like it, the thing that will most likely kill them are diseases related to being unfit and overweight.
So while kids might appear to be slightly safer in their childhood, the reality is that those other dangers were never a serious statistical danger to begin with, but not creating health habits is a contributing factor to the most likely cause of death when they’re older.
I think people vastly underestimate how dangerous living an inactive lifestyle is. I’m not saying this because I grew up super active and now I’m judging people who live their life differently to me, I’m saying it because those are the statistics, and because I DIDN’T grow up being active.
I definitely agree that child inactivity is something that is really bad in multiple ways.
Deaths from inactivity are going to show up in 40s and 50s after long and expensive periods of medical treatment. THats a problem because we are only really going to see significant issues around about now. But that trend of inactivity isn't equally distributed over time.
Cheap, fast enough, practical, goofey looking.
reply