I mean you might be right but looking at the lead times for a new CPU architecture I guess he will start making a difference in about 3-4 years from now.
Which would still be good enough for Intel, considering their current market share. They'll have a couple bad years but Intel will still be on top if it takes them four years to beat AMD again. Many businesses and OEMs didn't even have AMD on the radar anymore. I'm still waiting for a suitable dev laptop based on ryzen.
"...reaching a peak of $20,000 for a single bitcoin before a spectacular plunge in value in December 2017 from which it has never really recovered (it is trading at $3,800 at the time of writing)."
The present episode is quite interesting and they are merrily printing tethers which are probably being used to buy bitcoin and pump the price now that tether have dropped the insistance that tethers are backed by dollars. $1.4bn new tethers since the start of April coinciding with bitcoin going from $4100 to $9400. God knows where it ends - is there anything to stop them printing a trillion tethers and sending each bitcoin to $10 million?
Is the following an accurate summary of your position:
"There actually aren't dollars that are being moved into tether's accounts but fabricated database numbers. These fabricated numbers are then exchanged for bitcoins but the other people of that trade (the people buying tethers with bitcoins) somehow never redeem these tethers. Despite the tether to dollar exchange rate not at a discount there's a mass delusion. This delusion will continue until bitcoiners buy 10 million tethers for one bitcoin. The dollar-bitcoin market doesn't affect the price/supply of bitcoin."
Because that's what it appears to be. Do you know how a eurodollar works? If not, you would learn much from just that instrument.
BTC/Tether and BTC/USD are different trading pairs. If they printed a trillion tethers tomorrow and started buying bitcoins with them presumably people at some point would be unwilling to exchange BTC for tether. The BTC price might rise to 10 million tethers but the USD price would remain unaffected, effectively breaking the peg.
This is true although Tether can maintain USD:USDT at one to some extent if either they have the dollars or if they have bitcoin and it's going up. They can then sell their bitcoin for dollars to buy the USDT. That falls apart if bitcoin drops.
There is some guess work here but I'm refereeing to Tether the company https://tether.to/ which issues tokens I was refereeing to as tethers with the symbol USDT, and its affiliated entities. They used to have them backed 1:1 by real US dollars and still are I think over 50% backed by real USD but due to various issues it's not 1:1 any more. They now say:
>Every tether is always 100% backed by our reserves, which include traditional currency and cash equivalents and, from time to time, may include other assets and receivables from loans made by Tether to third parties, which may include affiliated entities.
The worry is instead of one US dollar coming in and one USDT being issued that an IOU from an insider or "affiliated entity" comes in saying I owe you a hundred million USD, Tether issues them 100 million USDT in return and then they punt it on buying bitcoin. Assuming bitcoin double the entity can pay back and bank $100m in profits which is obviously tempting for some less ethical people. The danger is bitcoin falls, they can't repay and default on the IOU.
I can only assume that $3800 figure came from Feb-March, meaning this article was written months before publication and not revised prior. Kind of makes sense...
Was just about to post that tidbit. I think people who have just about trippeled their investment in Bitcoin since February would argue that it's going through a pretty hefty recovery at the moment.
"They don't necessarily have the freedom to call that
forked language "Go" (I'm not sure), but I think that limitation is
OK; it serves nobody to call different projects by the same name. "
The problem is the preceding if clause. You say that you do this if you find it uninteresting, or if you have no expertise in the field of the paper. Both of these are qualifiers of you, not of the paper, so indeed it seems harsh to punish the authors for the bad referee selection of the editor.
He'll decline the request or say it should not be accepted. Declining the request is just fine, and a reasonable thing to do. There are many mathematical results that are in fact uninteresting (to just about anyone) and it's fine to suggest those be rejected from a good journal.
I've had many paper rejections, none because of false or uninteresting claims but almost all because "it's not good enough for this prestige journal" or "it's too specialized for this journal". I expect a certain number of those, because I submit to reach journals now and then and hope I get a reviewer and editor that like the work :) If I wanted certain publication immediately I'd submit to lower-tier journals first, which I have also done when I just needed something out.
The version for Windows will appear next year. The codebase isn’t shared as far as I know. They’ve announced if you buy Scrivener 1 for Windows today, you’ll get a free upgrade to Scrivener 3. (Check the blog post for details.)
The author is allowed to expect a certain domain knowledge. For example, an article about an advanced physics topic is not expected to explain Newton's laws.
Agreed. I should have been more clear on my criticism. If the author had the goal of convincing people beyond their existing audience then explaining their terms would have helped significantly.
They weren't trying to convince people beyond their existing audience. They're talking to the academic publishing audience, for whom these terms are quite standard.
Because when it comes down to it, "Hacker News thinks this is swell" doesn't actually matter.
