Whilst Interledger came out of research of Ripple, it has zero connection with XRP or relies on it or any blockchain for that matter. This comment is disingenuous at best.
Could you please explain why Interledger uses XRP in its marketing,[1] and why Interledger has a co-founder of Ripple (Chris/Christian Larsen, who was sued by the SEC in December 2020)[2] on its board of directors,[3] if Interledger doesn't have any connection to XRP?
[2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338: "According to the SEC's complaint, Ripple; Christian Larsen, the company's co-founder, executive chairman of its board, and former CEO; and Bradley Garlinghouse, the company's current CEO, raised capital to finance the company's business. The complaint alleges that Ripple raised funds, beginning in 2013, through the sale of digital assets known as XRP in an unregistered securities offering to investors in the U.S. and worldwide. Ripple also allegedly distributed billions of XRP in exchange for non-cash consideration, such as labor and market-making services. According to the complaint, in addition to structuring and promoting the XRP sales used to finance the company's business, Larsen and Garlinghouse also effected personal unregistered sales of XRP totaling approximately $600 million. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to register their offers and sales of XRP or satisfy any exemption from registration, in violation of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws."
Could you please explain why Interledger uses XRP in its marketing,
Its no secret that Interledger came out as a research project at Ripple, so examples like this our bound to still be in documentation/marketing. But just as XRP is listed, so is ETH, Dollars and Euros. Interledger is a payment clearing protocol where counter parties can settle there positions however they see fit.
DISCLAIMER: I am speaking in my own capacity and must note, I don't know Chris personally and have never spoken to him. These are my own opinions.
* why Interledger has a co-founder of Ripple (Chris/Christian Larsen, who was sued by the SEC in December 2020)[2] on its board of directors*
As stated, Interledger came out of research at Ripple. I believe he serves on the board because he deeply believes in Interledger mission and vision. Which is to create a more fair and open payments system for the world.
Yes there is an ongoing case, but our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence. And baring any finality in the case that is how it should be treated.
Commoner thanks for engaging and please do keep engaging, but I want you to know that there is no ulterior motive here. We are honestly just a community of people who are trying to solve a problem. Which is digital payments are still difficult and not affordable for a large number of people.
Trace amounts of radiation do not poison the entire air. There is natural radiation everywhere, from rocks, from space, from our own bones. The amount remaining from the tests is not even remotely close to a health hazard.
It's all to easy to conflate 'detectable' with 'hazardous' when you're dealing with some of the most sensitive instruments on earth.
It's still poison. Check msds.
Just because there is already poison in the air, doesn't mean people can't put more poison in the air.
Just because the poison doesn't kill everyone, doesn't mean it isn't poison.
That's a perspective one can have, for sure. Something that's like 10 orders of magnitude below the known hazard level is not something anyone should raise alarms about to the general public though. Otherwise you'd have to go around policing every little bird that's exhaling CO₂, etc.
Who were these people then? To say that they weren't scientists is to say that scientists can never be held accountable because every "actual" experiment is morally and ethically righteous.
Morality has nothing to do with it. There can't possibly be a control variable. Would you call someone who goes around smashing things a "scientist"? What is the experiment?
> It's wasn't a test. Someone just poisoned all the air.
If you want to be pedantic:
It was a test of if the air-poisoner-inator sufficiently poisoned the air. If the air was not poisoned then the experiment obviously failed. If the air was poisoned then the hypothesis was correct and the experiment succeeded.
A bomb test tests if the bomb bombed the location it was meant to bomb with the correct amount of bomb. The control variable would be not dropping the bomb.
> Would you call someone who goes around smashing things a "scientist"?
Yes, automotive engineers do this every day to build safer cars, and anyone in the safety industry obviously replicates unsafe conditions (explosions, fires, electrical failures, chemical spills, etc) to test safety equipment.
"Remember kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down” - Alex Jason
They are doing contained, well-thought-out experiments, with hypotheses, peer review, control samples, ability to repeat trials, data collection, and discussion.
Imagine, after months of work and sleepless nights the day has come, you have to submit your thesis. But during the final corrections your Windows decides to shutdown and update the system for an uncertain duration.
It wasn't my thesis, but I was part of the people that helped to solved the resulting mess (the update took 4 hours and the deadline was 2PM).
That day I learned to never rely on Microsoft ever again.
Kernel updates are not forced like is the case on windows. And yes, linux allows you to update the kernel without rebooting: it's called kernel live patching.
Linux has no mandatory automatic updates in the first place,* so this situation doesn't ever need to take place.
To answer your question, it is possible to update the Linux kernel without rebooting, but you may run into some issues with kernel modules that would be solved with a reboot.
* Edit: After writing this comment, I remembered that Snaps on Linux have automatic updates that can only be deferred up to 90 days. However, Snaps don't handle Linux kernel updates. I don't recommend using Snaps.
> Edit: After writing this comment, I remembered that Snaps on Linux have automatic updates that can only be deferred up to 90 days. However, Snaps don't handle Linux kernel updates. I don't recommend using Snaps.
I didn't even know that. It's one more item on the list of reasons to not use Snaps.
The situation improved after the May 2019 update, but the updates will still be automatically installed after you pause them every 7 days for a maximum of 5 times (35 days total):
Automatically installed, yet no automatic reboots. Maybe it’s because I’ve never used the Home edition, but I’ve never had Windows force a reboot on me. Sometimes my laptop won’t wake up out of sleep mode and it reboots, but that’s about every 2 months.
The last time I was really angry about Windows was with Window Me. The entire TCP stack took a dive which I couldn’t recover from. Even replaced the NIC. Replaced that with Windows 2000 and haven’t had a serious issue since.
Windows 10 pro also did that. Not sure if it still does, because after it happened to me once I waded into the policy editor and disabled all that shite. However, there was at least one forced update that happened to me after that. No idea why.
But windows is also weird. People always talk about ads or having candy crush forcefully reinstalled after updates. I strongly suspect these things vary by region, because those two at least I never noticed.
Staged Windows updates are a pretty common source of behaviors that do require reboots.
Everything from HID devices not responding, task manager and utilities like Settings not opening, device drivers left in an unstable state, and more can happen. To their credit, it does usually fail in a way that allows users to close applications before they're compelled to restart.
I’ve had Windows spontaneously restart on me while I’m doing stuff, to apply an update. If it was somehow my fault, I have no idea what caused it, and so it’s Microsoft’s fault after all since it wasn’t clear.
My computer once decided that 1 A.M. in the night is a great time to automagically boot up and do updates. I had to physically turn off power, so it wasn't able to do that. Even disabling that feature in the bios didn't work for some reason. I still don't know how the machine was able to do it. Fast boot wasn't even enabled, because it caused other problems when it was.
It stopped happening someday, but it's still haunting me. It doesn't really build trust.
On Linux, one can instruct the BIOS to turn on the computer at a specified time after suspend or even power off using rtcwake [1]. I don't know many things about Windows but I guess they are doing something like this.
Yeah, that's what i tried to turn off in the BIOS. It's actually one of the earlier UEFI enabled ones from MSI. I guess it's a bit bugged. It also tends to freeze when i have it open for too long. There are no updates anymore and i don't get a decent CPU for it, so i'll probably upgrade it soon-ish. Just not sure if i'll get MSI again or maybe try something else this time. Asus seems neat.
Since Windows 10. It is possible to disable it, but Microsoft fought very hard to prevent people from doing so by putting up a ton of road blocks. It was a loudly decried 'feature'.
I do not use it on the desktop so I have no idea if that works, I would guess that binary graphics drivers are unpatchable with live patch. I've patched the kernel on servers like that for a long time now, I recommended it warmly no problems so far!
It works the same on desktop as servers. I don't run anything that requires binary graphics drivers though (got far, far away from trying to use Nvidia on Linux many years ago), so I can't speak to that.
There is a program called needrestart which you can run after updates to see what needs restarting to load new copies of libraries etc. Generally speaking you only need to actually reboot for kernel updates.
When you update, you update everything - OS and apps all in one go unless you manually install stuff yourself outside of the package manager. Updates take from seconds to a few minutes unless you are running Gentoo in which case its from minutes to days or even weeks whilst your compiler crunches its way through vast seas of source code and you fix the various issues along the way 8)
You can automate the whole thing or not - up to you.
Grandparent was a facetious question intended to deflate the great-grandparent, which suggested that Windows' annoying need to restart for every damn thing was comparable somehow to Linux's update requirements.
Which as parent points out are functionally nonexistent, except for a rare kernel update (and you don't have to restart if your glasses are thick enough to live patch).
I often suggest Manjaro, which is smart enough to do all the updating for you, but is also Arch enough to let you do it all manually.
Maybe this is new in Windows 11, benefit of the doubt and all, but this isn’t a thing on any other versions of Windows. Forced reboots aren’t a thing. Misclicks, however, are.
Windows 10 will definitely update and reboot without the user taking any action.
One thing to remember is that many streamers are using dual-PC setups and the bigger streamers may only run these systems for streaming -- not for personal use.
It's very possible the streamer missed any update nags because they are mainly interfaced with the gaming PC.
And depending on their setup all the user input might be going to the gaming PC and the streaming PC might think it's currently inactive but with a pesky OBS process left running.
This is a thing on Windows 10, I was watching a video with my sister on the PC running Windows 10 and all of the sudden, it just rebooted into updating Windows.
One thing is that Windows Home does not have an option to postpone or delay updates, this is only for Windows Pro editions. When there is an update, it will start doing it automatically with a timer and it sometimes does not pop up on top of everything you're doing.
...but but but against your better judgement you read some of the technical stuff... wooooowwwww
Call me when the Helium node count drops below 100,000 again and I'll congratulate you and thank you for warning everyone about this "scam" before it was too late.
In order to join the network and start mining, you've got to buy $80 worth of gear from some company marked up to $600. That company then has to pay $40 to the Helium company in order for them to generate private keys that let your miner join the network and start making money.
Helium is just https://network.fon.com/ on a different frequency + a bunch of unneeded crypto bullshit that hides the grift.
Call me when I can stand up my helium miner based on open source hardware and software and make money using that.
If your goal is to build a global network with unheard of capital efficiency in 1/10th the time as incumbents, then the crypto bullshit is means to an end.
Helium will go down as one of quote unquote "actual uses for blockchain".
The proof is here. Lorawan coverage is now a solved problem.
One scam here is that there will likely be ubiquitous sensors in your tv, door bell, car, fridge, heater and they won't be reporting back to you. They'll be telling the sellers of these devices about your activities, and it will be sold just like connected tvs today sell info about what you watch.
No one wanted tvs to spy on them via the internet connections, they just wanted connected tvs with built in streaming devices. Today for any privacy you have to buy your own streaming device and not connect your tv itself to the internet. In the very near future, most devices will come with a low power radio that can't be turned off (just like you basically can't turn off the ubiquitous spying from your streaming connected tv). This network aids that.
They clearly have some sort of central issuance because they have an airdrop. Their “proof” mechanism is either centralized or Sybil vulnerable - haven’t bothered checking which.
> So funny watching bitter losers at hackernews get everything about blockchain wrong and stay poor over the past 10 years.
This is a hilariously off-the-mark shot. I have nothing against blockchain when used where it’s actually useful (I.e. for solving double-spend or zooko). This, however, seems like a silly misapplication.
> Throw in some buzzwords you don't really understand like "lightning"
I think you did not understand what I said, which is that payment for network services should use normal payment mechanisms instead of special ones.
I think a deeper dive is warranted on what and how they are "paying" people. Helium tokens are used as an incentive to bootstrap a network, but in the future part of payment for network services like you mentioned. I think this is one of the purest uses of crypto... less as currency replacement but more sharing in a network's future.
The helium company charges miner manufacturing partners $40 a unit in order to generate the required private keys for their miners to be able to join the network.
As soon as I found out I couldn't stand up my own DIY helium miner and start providing coverage and making money I became entirely disinterested.
With DIY they couldn't insure the security of participants. The temptation is too hight to create 100s of cloud miners.
That said, there are 50 HW manufacturers queued up to supply. Incorporating Helium into an existing Lora framework is very easy.
In fact, Helium is seeing an interesting phenomena where the PoC mining tech is becoming bundled with existing HW platforms because the material costs are so cheap. Projects are now bootstrapping on top of Helium.
Then it sure sounds like what they have is a proof of private keys algo, and not a proof of coverage algo. In which case why bother with a blockchain at all if there's a singular central entity that is the arbiter of all trust?
At first glance it might seem like that but the hotspots are measuring signal from eachother and are rewarded accordingly. The Proof of Coverage comes from actual measurements of RSSI against distance and power variations.
This is one of more interesting parts of the Helium network. It's wholly not forkable. Helium hotspot owners get their firmware updated automatically... which again seems like a big negative (single company controlled hardware) but it's imperative for this stage of network bootstrapping. I want Helium to tightly control quality now to get to a level of resources where trust itself can be disaggregated amongst DIY hotspots and firmware developers.
Onboarding fees maintain a buy-side for the network token until true network utilization catches up. The original article is an example of network utilization literally catching up.
How did they arrive at $40 I'm not too sure. It seems like a moderate amount?
Probably not many, if any, of them understand the technology at any level deep enough to comprehend why it’s a dumb idea. 200k people getting caught up in an altcoin scam is hardly new.
