Lots of platforms like gaming consoles have exclusive content where the same company is both the hardware/services owner and the content creator. What would be anticompetitive is they leveraged their position as an app platform to stunt other legitimate chat apps from gaining popularity. Beeper claims that’s what’s happening to them but their legitimacy is debatable.
I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with admitting we as humans have these kinds of pre-selection social biases baked into us as a survival trait. We just have to be conscious of it and try to fight it when we sense it working against our goals, especially in a hiring context.
That said what you did for your friend was perfectly reasonable knowing full well many people have these biases and will not make the effort to fight them consciously.
1. Make sure you're using a shared session between the test suite. So that spin-up only has to occur once per suite and not per test. This has the drawback of not allowing dataframe name reuse across tests, but who cares.
2. If you have any kind of magic-number N in the SparkSQL or dataframe calls (e.g coalesce(N), repartition(N)) change N to be parameterized, and set it to 1 for the test.
3. Make sure the master doesn't have any more than 'local[2]' set. Or less depending on your workstation.
Georgia Tech online masters looks like it does. I found this in the article author’s links when he breaks down the schools. Id really like to take this class too so it stood out to me.
And yet the vast majority of money laundering still happens through traditional banking channels. If crypto was such a panacea for laundering all the traffic would have switched over by now.
a) At some point you have to re-enter the traditional banking system. People after all want to do things with their laundered money like buy yachts, cars, companies, football teams etc. And so if you are sophisticated at money laundering then crypto is largely unnecessary.
b) Traditional financial system is 1000s of times bigger than crypto so of course you will see proportionally more money laundering happening there.
This is addressed in the original white paper. In a world where BTC is valued at 1M USD/coin you’d also expect a decent amount of day to day usage. Miners could still make decent profits based on transaction fees just from confirming blocks even once the Coinbase rewards stop. I’m not saying that’s currently the case, but that is the design. Also if miners are making a profit off let’s say $40k/coin and the price goes down to 30, yet there’s still a profit for some miners, how exactly does that become unsustainable?
Miners could make a profit at $1/coin. The issue is that profit comes from somewhere. And that somewhere is new money being put into BTC. Hence, BTC is negative cashflow.
Help me here. All databases are negative cashflow. They only 'cost', don't generate 'revenue' by themselves. This is true of ACH mechanism to transfer funds from one bank account to another. Does that make USD negative cashflow? Does the cost of maintaining this ACH system affect the price of USD v/s GBP?
The value provided by a database such as BTC is that it provides a record of 'who owns what at what point of time in history'. I can argue separately about why the 'immutability' of this database itself is a value created by Bitcoin, for which holders can be willing to pay premium for.
Miners earn profit if Operating Costs > $ value of (Transaction Fees + BTC mined). Over a long enough timeline, Fees + BTC mined will ~~ operating costs of the rig. If not, more miners will continue to see economic opportunity, and keep joining the miner pool till that equation is balanced.
The other source of BTC value going up need not be more demand for it, let's say over next 12 months. The ~6% inflation could show up there too.
Profit comes when their operating costs are less than the take home from any transaction fees and Coinbase rewards they’ve collected in the same period. It’s not a direct function of liquidity entering the system. It’s true that rising prices from new cash flow means more profit for miners, but that doesn’t imply the opposite. The price could stay constant for the next 100 years and miners that have found a way to remain profitable within that price point would be fine.
Miners have real expenses: electricity, depreciation, etc. Miners also generarte revenue, $45 million per day is a reasonable estimate [1]. This revenue is extracted from the Bitcoin system through both transaction fees and inflation (creating new Bitcoins), but these are sold in portion to pay real expenses, with presumably some profit.
We can estimate 300k transactions per day, which implies about $150 revenue per transaction. Miner revenue is your cost: it is what they extract from the Bitcoin system.
One Bitcoin transaction costs on the order of $150. It's really expensive.
> In a world where BTC is valued at 1M USD/coin you’d also expect a decent amount of day to day usage.
Citation needed.
(I don’t see why this should be true at all. If anything I’d intuitively think the opposite: If gold were $1MM/oz I don’t think people would be using it to buy groceries… Unless you’re directly talking about hyperinflation where $1MM isn’t worth a loaf of bread any more.)
is the day to day usage of bitcoin currently increasing in proportion to coin price? it seems entirely possible that the price could get very high solely as a speculative investment. in which case, you would still need additional investment money coming in
This is effectively what CTE style syntax gives you. I always find them more intuitive for intermediate to advanced queries for exactly this reason. They’re also much easier for another reader to later come in and deduce what the query is doing.
