There are a lot of stories about Jobs acting in completely unhinged and highly toxic ways. I agree that the particular situation you’re describing is a good though.
Pretty sure Steve Jobs was known for yelling at, belittling and bullying people, throwing tantrums and making threats/ultimatums.
Dude had anger/I'm the hero issues...his biography notably leaves this stuff out and Woz' only covers a few incidents (because he still considers friend) though I'm sure there were more. Like when Woz invented universal remote and sent a prototype to Jobs and Jobs smashed it against the wall in a fit of anger.
I will never claim Jobs was a good neighbor or a Mr. Rogers type. Or even a fun person to work for.
But I don’t look up to him for that. Same way I don’t look up to Tiger Woods for who he is as a husband, or Picasso for… well, also poor behavior with women.
I want to play for Michael Jordan to be with the best and to be challenged to be my best.
Sometimes the thing that makes people excellent in one facet of their life makes them impossible pricks in others.
Extreme excellence in one facet of life is what I admire people like that for.
I think you're setting up a false choice, but maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree then, because I absolutely, 100% will not be nor work with assholes to accomplish something. The tech world is FULL of genuine nice people who has acomplished remarkable things, and while I do respect people like jobs for what he accomplished, I do not let them skate for the mean or hurtful things they have done.
>Often the cars fail official inspections because of rotten breaks - this happens when your drive carefully and the Tesla is using regenerative breaking
Huh? Every EV uses recuperative braking, how is this special to Tesla?
The Teslas have far stronger regen than other brands. Have you ever wondered why Tesla's Long Range models have 500 horsepower? It's not for increased acceleration power, it's for increased braking power. Far less energy is wasted on the friction brakes in a Tesla.
German TUV thinks Teslas are horrible because apparently nobody is servicing their brakes on a regular enough interval so every time Teslas get pulled in for their 2 year inspections after 3 years of ownership they keep failing out on brakes and suspension, but VWs are the pinnacle of perfection because they slam 10K service intervals in your face.
(Of note: I drive a hybrid vehicle, and over 125,000+ miles of ownership I have replaced my front brakes once and my rear brakes three times now in five years.)
I'm at 125000 on my Long Range Model 3. I plugged a tire last month and photographed brake caliper - like new. I could not believe it. I can upload a photo if you'd like.
.... I also didn't add the rest of my environmental conditions like the fact I'm in an absolute rust belt in the winter.
NYS DOT does some good work with the salt and sand up here, heavy on the salt. Mother Earth has some high blood pressure up here as she turns rotors to rust.
My calipers (all around) are also in excellent condition after 150k and I've been told that it's an absolute surprise I didn't destroy them with how low the pads went on the last change...
> Huh? Every EV uses recuperative braking, how is this special to Tesla?
It‘s not. But there are some newer EVs (e.g. Mercedes and VW) that track brake usage and will periodically switch to using the disk brakes when there‘s danger of corrosion.
In my country the Government requires any salesman to have some computer for the sake of sending the info about any sell preferably immediately. I don't know why does they need this, maybe it is making easier for them buying the gold toilets.
If that country happens to be Germany, it's to combat tax fraud.
Germany still does not generally require this. It's required if you use an electronic cash register (and only since recently), but if you don't, it's perfectly legal to just tally the money with pen and paper at the end of the business day. It's how all the small fast food restaurants do tax evasion: just scribble half of what you actually sold on the back of a napkin, and that's enough "proof" for the tax authorities.
The current governing coalition has come to an agreement that electronic cash registers will be mandatory starting in 2027, but that law hasn't been passed yet.
In Germany there are no such pastime as shitting gold. BTW Germany is well-known country who shitted its IT revolution in exchange of migrants. Keep working dear Germans, that Algerian guy with no job but with Lambo will not survive without your taxes. (if somebody is isterested, he has a big family but takes all the money from all his daughters because this is his business plan to pet Lambo with no effort).
To my knowledge Siemens is currently making a lot of money by adding spinning inertia to the grid because that is easier than getting the response time/power out of electronics.
I like the idea, I just don't know how to implement a robust micropayment system that does not require a lot of messages back and forth for a transaction. Given the intended use-case, that would not work.
I can design such a system in a couple of minutes. As the adjacent commenter said it can be done with a blockchain, using smart contacts.
1. Sender deposits fee 2. Message includes unlocking code that itself only can be unlocked by the recipient 3. Message getting wrapped with details of forwarders while it moves between peers 4. Recipient unlocks the message via the smart contract thereby releasing the micropayments to the forwarders
The central smart contract is on the blockchain and can only be used if the internet is up. That's why you haven't solved anything here.
Your proposal is that since Alice and Bob can't communicate in real-time, either directly or indirectly, Alice does an interaction with a smart contract to lock some value and then Bob does an interaction with the same smart contract to unlock some value.
We can view the smart contract as some shared algorithm between Alice and Bob (if they are running their own nodes) or we can view it as something outside of them both (perhaps they are RPC customers of Infura). If Alice and Bob are running their own nodes, however those nodes manage to communicate with each other is a way they could just send the message to each other and not need a blockchain. And if they're both able to communicate with Infura, they could also swap Infura for Gmail and send each other a message the normal way (or if they can really only reach Infura for some reason, they can put their messages on the blockchain). But we are talking about designing systems that can work in scenarios where direct communication like this is impossible, and messages have to be forwarded hop-by-hop over a span of hours. You can't design a system for slow networking, that assumes the existence of a separate fast network just to run the payment system.
All nodes running a blockchain have to be in low-latency contact with each other. If you try to run Bitcoin in a network with multi-hour latency, you'll never reach consensus on which blocks are in the chain. You'll be hard-forking all over the place. You'd have to slow it down to, like, one block per week, but then it's far too slow to be useful for payments.
If a blockchain exists in such an environment, it exists on a tightly-coupled cluster of nearby nodes. And that cluster is pretty much the same as a single central node, from the perspective of the network. You don't gain anything by making it a cluster (except for redundancy, as usual).
More familiar than you can imagine. The fact that you think smart contracts are what are needed to solve a decentralized communications problem suggests that you've learnt a new hammer and everything now looks like a nail to you.
Please check the parent comment which I replied to, this is a solution to “how to implement a robust micropayment system” in this context, not how to solve a “decentralized communications problem”.
Well, there's the "Given the intended use-case, that would not work." part which very much means the payment system is in the context of the intended use case.
>I like the idea, I just don't know how to implement a robust micropayment system that does not require a lot of messages back and forth for a transaction. Given the intended use-case, that would not work.
My reply is: here is the system that will work. Very simple. Keep in mind that multiple use cases and applications were mentioned, so I don’t see an issue for such an economic model to support at least some of the use cases.
It doesn't work for this use case, as they tried to explain, as it breaks the entire point of the system as a messaging platform that doesn't require the internet.
The message is encrypted in layers, with each forwarder only able to decrypt their part (like an onion).
As the message is forwarded peer-to-peer, each forwarder appends some kind of proof-of-forwarding.
When the recipient finally receives and decrypts the message, they unlock the contract using a code embedded in the message. This triggers micropayments to all the forwarders.
Do forwarders need to interact with the blockchain (i.e., create/update a smart contract) when forwarding?
If so, wouldn’t that require each forwarder to have internet access at the time of forwarding—which breaks the idea of fully offline Bluetooth relaying?
Or is all the blockchain interaction deferred to the recipient, who proves the path the message took and triggers all payments at once?
reply