Not sure if you mean why in the movie or why they couldn’t in real-life
in the movie, they bring up the mission requirements at low altitude render a certain tech of the new gen planes useless under the scenario because of its dependence on radar iirc
in real life the decision behind avoiding 5th is because most of the information about the planes are still highly classified, ie there is no full feature spec of 5th gen planes available, so no way united states military would let them film a plane
Venmo isn't instant. Send yourself more than 15k. If that goes through, try to send it back.
Sure, the row in the database is instant though.
I agree it is a feature for a bank to be able to undo mistakes. The problem happens when a bank commits the mistakes and refuses to acknowledge it.
This is akin to all of us submitting to google and gmail, its great unless our account gets flagged by an algorithm by mistake. No mistake, i would be screwed.
Further, both will be totally instant vis-a-vis your actual bank account in a few years as RTP rolls out. No crypto needed. [1] I'm led to believe the delays in implementation were ensuring small community banks had a risk model.
> This is akin to all of us submitting to google and gmail, its great unless our account gets flagged by an algorithm by mistake. No mistake, i would be screwed.
In those organizations, I highly doubt microservices or monolithic decisions would have made a difference.
Disorganized management won't magically get fixed if the root problems of ASAP, priority, techinal debt, etc features aren't fixed.
The fact that the organization was trying to combine two large monolithic codebase into one is an obvious smell that technical decisions are made by someone non-technical.
Well yes, acquisitions are frequently decided by nontechnical people. That’s where the money comes from.
For better or worse, nontechnical people sometimes make decisions. One of the jobs of a software architecture is to be robust in accommodating the consequences of them. Monolithic architectures frequently aren’t.
This is the most likely answer. There would have been a few other warning signs durung the due diligence but most VCs who have rejected me have used some incredibly lame excuse instead of being honest.
It wouldn't hurt them to simply say "we don't understand this and that makes us uncomfortable" instead of bullshit like "doesn't fit our investment profile" or the tech stack is wrong.
Trying to educate VCs in something out of their comfort zone is like trying to teach a pig to tapdance. Most of them I have had dealings with have such limited life experience they will never really understand agtech or biotech.
I think your points were valid when cryptocurrency first started, but now it's now a bit too entrenched to be easily squashed.
1) Many miners use renewable energy. China uses a bit of coal for mining, but recent news (or FUD) has most miners scrambling for "greener" energy. Bitcoin's energy usage is talked about quite a bit, but doesn't seem to really dissuade.
2) If Bitcoin had been started by a large organization versus grassroots - this likely would have been squashed. Instead, considering now how widespread it is, and how many politicians own crypto, along with Coinbase being affluent enough to lobby against this - this scenario now seems unlikely. However, I do agree, there will be a fight for monetary control and it may be ugly, but ultimately cryptocurrency will survive in some way or another.
3) Yes - in the beginning, the vast majority of crypto in was used for illegal reasons. Monero is probably a better use case as it's untraceable. Bitcoin has a public ledger making it much easier to track. However, the percentage of overall transactions (crypto) for illegal activities has decreased over time.
USDC is probably the best bet of what you're imagining of a crypto pegged to the US Dollar. It also allows for a blacklist of addresses known in illegal activities.
With all that being said, DeFi may prove to be a larger use case, as it's now possible to create "virtual" banks that run on code and no humans, etc.
For the first point, I don't think it matters if the energy is green or not. It's still energy that is being wasted and could be used to in other ways. Just because the source is not directly burning coal, doesn't mean it doesn't have a net positive impact on emissions.
And for example Bitcoin can very much be squashed in my opinion. Enforce all transactions to be declared above a certain limit. Already the norm for banking that will likely become a necessity for cryptocurrency transfers. I just literally can see no way that this wouldn't happen. Exchanges will need to report it. I feel this would remove a lot of speculation from the market and illegal usage and leave the mature coins. Like some of those that you mentioned.
So when I was saying cryptocurrency I meant the large amount of unregulated coins, chief among them Bitcoin. I agree that there will be coins in the future especially government backed coins or coins that are linked to those coins. But I wouldn't expect Bitcoin to be relevant in a few years.
It's estimated ~39% of total Bitcoin mining uses renewable energy, as of September 2020. It might be higher now due to all the electricity usage attention in recent months, but as long as it's under 90 - 95%, there'll be a lot of criticism.
IMO it's inevitable Bitcoin will face increasing pressure to plan a transition to PoS. Especially if Ethereum's PoS transition goes well and the network is running successfully for at least a year afterwards. (And at that time, Bitcoin's total electricity usage might be much higher than it is now, also.)
But I also predict the community and devs won't even consider the idea, and that this'll manifest as mutually escalating tension and hostility between the different cryptocurrency communities, news media, social media, etc. It's already pretty polarized, but I think it could get much worse. Especially if Bitcoin's price starts to rise more slowly or drop and Ethereum's starts to grow more quickly or surpass it.
