Likely bad coding or bad database design.
Best practice is to avoid using email as primary key in the user database, instead use an internal ID, so that an email change can happen without touching the primary key.
Your reply made me think of an alternative to deleting accounts : replace personal information to use a pseudonym and a throwaway email, remove everything that can be removed.
That would help once the badly coded website get hacked or its database get leaked.
Yes, assuming the site allows deleting accounts.
Many don’t have an easy way of deleting accounts. Some won’t delete an account even when making a formal request.
Malware that feature crypto mining is probably still using GPUs, since the person getting the coins is not paying the utility bill.
Thanks for the refresher. I’m aware of the basics, but assumed the difficulty measured by the number of zeros could only increase. Apparently difficulty can decrease, and I’ve read it’s expected to decrease very soon to keep the system running a while longer.
Bitcoin’s creator was smart enough to design a system that automatically adjust to remain profitable for several years without intervention, but not smart enough to foresee social and environmental costs.
It’s a good example that illustrate why automated systems shouldn’t be left running unsupervised, even if it’s designed by the best minds with the best of intentions.
The headline isn’t accurate as usual, but isn’t completely wrong either. Anyway, the article you’ve quoted is more informative than the one I posted, so thanks for that quote.
We’re at a point where it’s no longer profitable for individual miners, even if we ignore externalities like the cost we’re collectively paying due to pollution and carbon emissions.
Mining require increasing amount of energy and resources as time pass, so unless there’s a radical change in bitcoin’s algorithm or unless energy becomes free, we should expect mining to get non-profitable in more and more situations.
Given the current price of bitcoin, I suspect the market still doesn’t know.
Yes, the signs were there, even before he first got selected.
Better late than never. But I fear too few US citizens learned the lesson. Even if the majority realize Trump is dangerous and act like Putin’s useful idiot, and manage to prevent Trump from permanently turning the country into a totalitarian state, I fear they could fall for the same bullshit again if it comes from a different populist candidate.
That would beat the purpose of insurance.
Insurance is about risk management, and poking a hole is creating some risk, especially for the local environnement and nearby shores.
What would the penalty be for not being insured?
The decision make sense on principle. To have any effect, it needs a penalty and enforcement.
Could Canada invoke NATO’s article 5 to request assistance to defend against the USA?
Let’s do a carbon import tax in as many countries as possible. One that can’t be negotiated away, only avoided by reducing fossil fuel use.
If someone only agree because of a dark pattern or agressive/repetitive consent popups, then it’s not free and informed consent.
It’s pressuring visitors into accepting something they wouldn’t otherwise accept, and it might not be compliant.
Clearly there need to be more enforcement of GDPR.
Those companies doing business in the EU should have been looking for alternatives since at least 2016 when GPDR was adopted.
It doesn’t seem realistic to rely on targeted advertising if that require opt-in, informed consent. I suspect only a small fraction of visitors would agree.
I hope contextual advertising and similar less-invasive approaches becomes the norm again. Contextual advertising have been used for decades in Newspapers, on the TV and radio.
While the statement was likely intended as aspirational language about technological progress, it has since circulated widely online, with some interpreting the comment literally.
The article headline, and sharing of this headline, feeds the conspirations and litteral interpretation.
The line is sometimes blurry between reporting claims and fueling rumors or conspirations.
Individuls earning more than €250,000 a year and couples with a joint income of more than €500,000 will this year pay a minimum 20% income tax
My understanding is that it’s not a new tax, but a 20% minimum income tax for high earners. It’s a limit on how much income tax optimisation high earners can do.
Given the income tax rate in France, and a quick calculation, a single person earning €250000 should have a base income tax rate of ~35%. This is without any tax rebate, without any tax optimization.
So high earners who aren’t doing lots of tax optimisation should already have an incoming tax that’s higher than 20%.
Just stop talking to them, they have no jurisdiction
If they try and claim there’s no jurisdiction, the other party might disagree. Especially if the contract has a provision that defines which jurisdiction/court is responsible for resolving disputes.
A guess is finding a proper and legal way to break a contract is preferable for companies. An arbitrary breach of contract might make a company look unreliable, could make it more difficult to sign any contract in the future.
IANAL so I have no idea if they’d risk penalties as well.
GI 410 b may receive 20.4 times more than Earth’s insolation
🔥
Then why doesn’t it adjust to avoid negative social and environmental effects? Probalby because it’s not possible to adjust bitcoin’s algorithm, only some parameters, and because miners don’t have enough intensive to abandon bitcoin for something less destructive.
My understanding is it’s not possible to modify nor fix bitcoin’s core algorithm, which include the difficulty and consensus logic.
A hard fork is possible, which means leaving the bitcoin network and setting up an alternative (hopefully better) network with a different algorithm.