What makes you believe that just because there is X percent of category 1 in set A it is "unjust" if there is not X percent of category 1 in an unrelated set B?
Also why do you think this principle applies to the categories Women and Blacks, and not for instance people with diabetes, psychopaths and people who like Taylor swift?
I suppose because Matlab is a language designed for math, compared to C which is designed as a low level systems language. Julia would be more or less an open source equivalent of Matlab.
It seems that the code was translated from Fortan to C, however which makes sort of explains it since it would be fairly trivial to translate from Fortran to C.
Code written in C with a lot of math in it would become quite convoluted and tedious to work with in comparison. Apart from that you probably have a lot of useful tooling with Julia and Matlab.
So if anyone wants to start working on rocket science using computer programming, Matlab or Julia would be worth looking into.
Right so Mike Lynch was in a huge legal case in the US, and ran a company that was large at least by UK standards, which meant that his action affected thousands of people, making this noteworthy.
No, they used a Lithium IRON battery. LiFePO₄ literally means Lithium Iron Phosphate. These batteries are safer, more thermally stable, and have a longer cycle life compared to typical Lithium-Ion (LiCoO₂) batteries. However, LiFePO₄ has a lower energy density, meaning less capacity for the same size and weight.
idk, maybe because their parents liked them? Do you really want to incentivize against people working hard to make sure their offspring, has a good life? Also a family-home might have sentimental value, and this really doesn't only apply to rich people, quite the contrary actually.
> Do you really want to incentivize against people working hard...
You mean by taxing labour and taxing commerce?
Sorry for the snark, but come on...
The Roman empire was built on never taxing labour, because that was seen as an atrocity (never mind the slavery). Instead they taxed luxury goods and debased their currency. The United States was built on never taxing labour, because that was seen as an atrocity (never mind the slavery). Instead they taxed importations and debased their currency.
Since all land was created by God and everything else was created by people's labour, the really unjust thing is to tax labour instead of taxing land. But "territory" is an instinct so deeply ingrained that it's probably been with us for millions of years. However, which other mammals allow members of the same species living on their territory which are not family? As in renting.
> The Roman empire was built on never taxing labour, because that was seen as an atrocity (never mind the slavery). Instead they taxed luxury goods and debased their currency. The United States was built on never taxing labour, because that was seen as an atrocity (never mind the slavery). Instead they taxed importations and debased their currency.
Interesting, even though I don't see if you are for or against taxing labour, commerce or inheritance.
Inheritance tax is a way for the establishment to take land from small landowners. The state isn't a good counterbalance to "greedy" corporations, the state is there to support big business.
> It'll be sold to a mega-corp because they have more money to spend. So in a couple generations you kill off areas that are primarily small farms.
Please see Bruce511's comment above, he explains it better than me.
The thing is that with an inheritance tax, you make it impossible for someone to live with little or no money, and caring for their off-spring, by giving them a place to stay.
> Since all land was created by God...
Aha, but in the commandments it says that you shouldn't steal, so having property doesn't seem to be forbidden?
> But "territory" is an instinct so deeply ingrained that it's probably been with us for millions of years
So, is caring for your off-spring, kindness and brotherhood. What is your point?
> And then, even when faced with implementing a huge, audit critical, distributed append-only store, the thing they tell us blockchains are so useful for, they just use normal database tech like the rest if us. With one centralized infrastructure where most of the transactions in the network actually take place. Who's tech stack looks suspiciously like every other financial institution.
Right but surely you must understand that the blockchain transactions are already stored in the blockchain, and what this is about is logs that might be useful for debugging purposes, and as such would be more verbose than what's required and also could contain sensitive information?
Apart from that isn't it obvious that the performance requirement would make this unrealistic, with no added benefits, whatsoever.
>I'm so glad we're ignoring 100 years of securities law to let all of this incredible innovation happen.
Storing all these logs on a blockchain might very well (apart from being totally asinine) breach privacy regulations as well, as it might very well store sensitive data?
Yes, I understand why blockchains are bad, have no benefits, terrible performance and are a privacy nightmare. Thanks for explaining it in more detail. And binance understands it too, that's why they're not using it (not even a private one!) despite all of their talk about how it's a revolutionary technology.
