They can take either; waiting for confirmations is only a matter of reducing double-spend risk.
In practice, seconds after a transaction has been signed and broadcast, it is already very unlikely to double-spend. Miner incentives are such that the first-seen transaction is the most likely to be used. A delay of a couple seconds is sufficient to account for network-propagation lag.
You wouldn't do this for high-value transactions, but there's some threshold where real-world risk is lower than the convenience of a fast transaction, and that threshold is reasonably high.
Counterweights provide a constant force, whereas springs can be precisely balanced to the decreasing weight as the overhead door becomes more horizontal. It is inherently related to the design of segmented overhead doors.
I don't think that is true in the United States. The Federal Arbitration Act applies nationwide, and it explicitly preempts state law.
If you think that I am wrong, please explain why.
(You are right that you "can sue regardless of outcome," but only in the sense that anyone can sue anyone for anything. If you enter into an agreement to arbitrate disputes, the outcome of that arbitration is generally binding.)
The premise is flawed because that assumes the samples they are studying are identical.
Replication is difficult, and particularly difficult for novel processes where the important variables are not well understood. It could be that the methods were reported as accurately as possible but still leave out critical detail(s).
Benthy, maize, and arabidopsis are the three major plant models. Hundreds of labs specialize in benthy, thousands more use it. It is absolutely a model by any conceivable definition of the term.
One of the primary reasons it is a model is due to transient expression in the leaves via TMV. You can quickly assay many constructs on the same plant with a simple overnight experiment.
What they're really after is using the structure to direct the wind and create stronger flows by the lip of the roof. This is not a new idea, but perhaps they have hit on a shroud design that works more effectively.
I have little doubt that it can produce impressive figures in very specific conditions - many designs do - but I doubt they see vastly improved real-world performance.
> efficiency of 42% of Betz limit, which is inferior to standard utility-scale turbines
That isn't surprising at all; wind generation scales very very well with larger size. If it actually achieved 42% at that size, it would still be a major innovation.
But that's also a strong claim that requires very strong evidence. The reasons for inefficiency at smaller scales are fundamental: higher drag to lift. Essentially what they're doing is using the existing building as part of the device to direct wind. This is not a new idea, and in favorable conditions you can get some impressive numbers. But in real life..
Most miners stuck it out to the bitter end. Hashrate was only down around 20% from the peak at the switch to PoS. Then it takes a few days to take apart the rigs and get them ready for listing. And that's only for the ones that aren't trying to mine something else, or simply are in denial.
But the main counterpoint to the GPU supply increase is the pent up demand from two years of usurious GPU pricing. A lot of people are ready to finally upgrade as soon as prices are reasonable.
Expect the market to soften - and it is, 3060ti prices are down like $40 over a couple days on eBay - but I also wouldn't expect bargain prices.
They usually undervolt/clock the GPU, but not the memory. VRAM temps can be an issue and only some miners will try to address that properly with copper shims, etc.
The 3090 is notoriously bad for mining because it has memory chips on both sides of the board, leading to more heating in one spot and poor cooling for the 'back side' chip. Other cards tolerate it much better, but it can be an issue.
So while overall mining cards should be good, there are some specific issues to watch out for. A failed memory chip is not an easy fix, requiring a reball/replacement of that chip.
100% accurate. ethash is memory bound. I've definitely seen 'memory go bad'... but at our scale, the percentage failure rate on that is in the single low digits. Additionally, we have cards that run just fine for years on end.
Maybe, as you suggest, it is just something that is more card specific.
In practice, seconds after a transaction has been signed and broadcast, it is already very unlikely to double-spend. Miner incentives are such that the first-seen transaction is the most likely to be used. A delay of a couple seconds is sufficient to account for network-propagation lag.
You wouldn't do this for high-value transactions, but there's some threshold where real-world risk is lower than the convenience of a fast transaction, and that threshold is reasonably high.