Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more ksjskskskkk's commentslogin

hn is a good example.

build on one server and when you hit gold pay for a hosted solution and pray your solution scale vertically. or use the newly found profits to hire someone who can fix it.


can you sell?


can we cut the middle man and have a spot etf on ransomware?


obviously a steve-jobs-like backroom deal like the one from 2005 having most companies agreeing on doing it at the same time "with no quick hires backsies".


this comment jumped from 10 points to -10 points all over 5 day. why people get offended by this fact of the industry?


but rent abuse is the safer way to retire...


Such is capitalism.

β€œThe rich get richer The poor get the picture The bombs never hit you when you're down so low”

-Midnight Oil β€œRead About It”


A major reason housing is expensive is that governments forbid people from building housing, which is not exactly capitalism.


because not doing so would harm people retiring in rent abuse. it's all the same problem.


love how the article ends with a bunch of Xitter links disproving everything it said.


It's almost as if plausible deniability is all it's about.


every single sp500 company will ask managers to say a random number between 60 and 90 to claim as their engineers' percentage hours under this tax credit.


it's always driver support.

just because everyone convinced you too use uefi as your true base OS doesn't mean it's not a driver issue. no matter how much you try to cover your own eyes.

same with cpu and microcode.


> > is not compatible at all with AMD platforms

> it's always driver support.

Not necessarily, if it's an Intel module it might be a CNVi module instead of normal PCIe module, meaning it can only work on Intel platforms (because half of the WiFi hardware is actually within the CPU/chipset; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNVi for more information).


nah. it's available in m2 pcie and usb.

plain old crappy software (driver) which you are not supposed to have access (despite all the filling being likely based on gpl)


you missed the point. yeah some numbers to up because company sold products. but everyone who bet on coke instead got richer. go diabetes!


There is coca zero.


fidelity et all have all the dollars. if there's a fork, they will probably own 51pct alone. you will be asking about THEIR fork.


Lol this comment is funny because you clearly don't understand how Bitcoin works but are convinced it will be a problem. Owning the most bitcoin (or even a majority of the bitcoin) doesn't mean you control the network......


The bitcoin network is ultimately controlled by the economic weight of its largest holders. If the big funds control enough bitcoin, they will have the power to pick which fork holds value. Miners and node operators can operate on whichever fork they want, but that doesnt mean Coinbase or Fidelity or whoever is going to recognize that fork.


> Miners and node operators can operate on whichever fork they want, but that doesnt mean Coinbase or Fidelity or whoever is going to recognize that fork.

Mate that isn't how it work. If Coinbase or Fidelity don't recognise the real blockchain then they no longer have real bitcoin, they have a forked coin (because they are not on the true bitcoin chain). The Bitcoin chain is determined by consensus of the majority of miners/nodes (not bitcoin holders!) and if they break from that they now have a substantially devalued asset (look up the price of BCH and BTG these days).

You seem to be under a misapprehension that owning the most bitcoin gives an institution or individual power over the network. It does not.

Bitcoin, by definition, cannot exist on two separate chains. If an institution attempted what you are saying all they will have done is reverse alchemy: turned gold (bitcoin) into lead (an unrecognised chain with no mining occurring, no recognition by nodes etc).


Yes, it’s all about the consensus of majority of the nodes! Not miners.


not even that. the miners follow the nodes. if fidelity holds all transactions andbonly show them to their private miners, they will always mine with more transactions then the others, hence the 51 attack is based on transactions not miners nor nodes.

again, the cheerleaders who might know math (usually not even that) forget about the ruthless of business


Lol that isn't what a 51% attack is...The confidence people on this thread are speaking about something they have no clue about is staggering. A 51% is ALL about miners and nodes.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp

> forget about the ruthless of business

Noone has forgot a thing just aren't clowns like you who think businesses are some substitute god who can't be beat. Fidelity doesn't "hold" the transactions. Transactions to be relevant MUST be broadcast to the network and if this doesn't happen then the blockchain plods along as if they didn't happen.

Honestly, learn a bit more about how this stuff actually works before commenting.


> fidelity et all have all the dollars. if there's a fork, they will probably own 51pct alone. you will be asking about THEIR fork.

I have read this comment five times, and I simply cannot make heads or tails of it.

What is "THEIR fork"? If there's a fork, everyone has keys which underpin addresses on both forks. How do you know which fork belongs to "fidelity et all"?

And more importantly, why is that relevant? Isn't the longest chain the only determiner of canon? Or has that changed recently?


Yes everyone with keys will have access to addresses on both forks. Which is why people have access to both β€œBitcoin” and forked β€œBitcoin Cash” addresses with one set of keys


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: