Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more eoo's commentslogin

I understand how mRNA works. I've got a background in both Chem and CompSci and I read https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source...

But I wouldn't use it for the same reason I don't use Bluetooth headsets -- tech is just way too new, and of for some reason there are long term unexpected side effects, we won't know until a decade or two goes by.

PS: I'm vaccinated with the viral vector AstraZeneca one


> we won't know until a decade or two goes by.

that's exactly the bullshit that he's calling out.

the mRNA is gone in days, all that remains is the immune response.

we have hundreds of year of experience at understanding the kinds of autoimmune side effects that can happen after a viral infection or a vaccine. they either surface in under 90 days or they don't.

5 years from now we're not going to have a sudden outbreak of side effects.

if it did it would upset the entire discipline of rheumatology.

once 3 months go by after your vaccination anything that happens to you after that has nothing to do with the vaccination.


The technology in its current form has been available since 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine

Wouldn't you be interested in adopting a new headset with Bluetooth v5 given that you know of v4 (and it's minor pain points?)


Alright, I'll take the bait. Why don't you use Bluetooth headsets?

This seems odd.


Was the comment about Bluetooth headsets ironic?


Yep, this is just the introduction to these kinds of thing. Then, they start to get accountants in both countries to agree on what seems a reasonable rate, say 30%? And the other 70% can be delayed earnings or whatever, and then maybe they decide to reinvest it instead. The list of resources is bottomless and continuously increasing.

What matters is that because the savings are potentially huge, your BigCo is incentivized to reduce that tax exposure and they've got the legal and accounting workforce to find that optimization.


I met aome of the creators back in the day. The RedHat model is working well for them: open source and sell consultancy. It doesn't scale exponentially but as long as their OSS product is good they won't have a shortage of incoming deals.


Assuming some market efficiency, those fees should be fairly similar to the cost to process that transaction into a block, so, 2,000 usd


This assumes that there's no inflation I believe. But on Ethereum there is inflation.


Until EIP 1559 goes into effect in July, then it might vary between deflationary and inflationary at times.


It's not about being close to consumers.

1. If you are the Communist party and you are planning electricity for a 5M inhabitants city in 2007, growing at 9% (doubling every ~7 years, electricity use is highly correlated with economic growth), you need to make the plants 10 times bigger than needed for them to last 20 years

2. Mining equipment is placed next to the source of electricity

3. Corrupt officials are co-opted (just turn on that turbine that is wasted working capacity for you, and I'll pay you in cash)

4. Profit?

FWIW, I think this doesn't happen exclusively in China but in every place where there's idle energy capture potential.


It's happening in morocco. Soluna is putting in a wind farm, which will mine bitcoin while they're waiting for transmission lines to go in.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/09/const...


You can't just turn on a second turbine because it's wasted anyway, it's the water reserve that is the currency here. It runs out faster if you use all turbines.


I think it's really similar to art. It's more about your relationship with the artist or the emotion that makes you want to own the original... And of course, the art market.


TL;DR: Ethereum uses a lot of energy, we shouldn't use it for anything non essential because it wastes energy.

Contrary to the article title, 90% of the arguments exposed are just rehashing why energy waste os bad, and why we shouldn't make use of it for NFTs. 10% of the article ("the many other reasons") is a critique of the art circuit and imho, a little ranty about how hard it is to get rich from art.

The actually interesting part of the article is at the end, but its just an enumeration of the ways in which cryptoart world:

* Cryptoart creates artificial scarcity for digital objects, creating an “original” which can be owned

* Cryptoart recreates the some of the worst aspects of existing art markets

* Cryptoart offers no intellectual property protection and there is no regulatory structure in place to keep copyrighted materials from being minted into and sold as NFTs

* Cryptoart smart contracts offer no legal protection, and any talk of contracts baked into the NFT “requiring resales to cut in the artist” or “compensate gallery workers” depend entirely on the goodwill of the purchaser.

The rest 4500 words are a repetition of how bad it is to waste energy, woth a note at the end about how the author was "never as bored with a subject to write 5000 words about it", which to me is pretty passionate.

edit: formatting


That's a pretty long TL;DR ...


It's a pretty long article


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: