Bitcoin for example (and many others), will prune old blocks that are no longer required to make transactions on the network. If a block has all unspent inputs used up, the block will be pruned
That is a logical solution for Bitcoin. Doesn't Etherium track transactions back to the beginning of time though? That sounds like a Shlemiel The Painter problem.
The hype around "you don't need a blockchain" is reaching a fever pitch as well. Those who read HN are likely aware of the differences and viable usecases.
There are a few good points made, many business scenarios would be fine with a centralized database.
However, the content is highly opinionated and shows a lack of understanding regarding to crypto transactions and block generation, for example.
> many cryptocurrencies rely on trusted third parties to handle payouts. So, they use blockchain to generate coins, but don’t use blockchain to handle payouts. Because of the issues involved around trust. Let that sink in for a moment.]
It's not a fair comparison though. Yes, the salary is lower, but you can free or almost free healthcare, you get many vacation days, you get vacation money (at least in the netherlands), you get paid time off when sick, more job stability, unemployment benefits, etc.
The healthcare argument isn't really that compelling, because most white-collar professionals in the USA have pretty good health insurance through their work. The extra time off is excellent, but you can put a dollar value on it and it doesn't come close to adding up to the paycut. You also pay higher taxes, and the cost for other goods and services (food for example) is often higher.
Disposable income for a senior developer in a major market in the US is likely to be much higher than their counterpart in the EU.
There may be other harder-to-measure cultural or quality-of-life reasons that make the tradeoff worth it, but I don't think "free healthcare" and a few weeks off comes close to making the case quantitatively.
It goes beyond these things. You get a quality of life enhancement by being in a more community centric environment. Less pressure overall. No one wonders if there is something wrong with you when you take 3 weeks off in a row. Being able to walk to the bakery, grocery store, and having better access to quality food. The fruit in the U.S. is quite bland compared to what you get in Europe. Having people out and about makes a place worth living in. The focus on the financial aspect is a very American trait. The overall quality of life is just better in Europe. Being able to take a train to a nice destination is great. Being able to walk from one village to the next is awesome. Going to a lake that isn’t fenced off due to private property obscuring access to the shore is wonderful.
Also when I go to the U.S. it’s kind of shocking to see how many people could do with good healthcare but are obviously not able to get it. I want everyone around me to be healthy not just my immediate friends and family.
The US is huge. Just to add a slight counterpoint, where I live I too can get great produce and visit natural areas that aren’t fenced off (California). Walkability depends on the city as well. The other points you make are valid though.
Yeah but I get 6+ weeks paid time off, plus 6 weeks paternity leave, and triple the pay of a comparable position in the EU, at the cost of worse healthcare.
At this point in my life I'm mostly healthy, so the risk of staying in the US outweighs the benefits of moving to the EU.
6 weeks paternity is not very much. 6 months is better but we get 480 days in Sweden. Our children don’t need metal detectors or security fences at school, it’s a given that you take time off if your kids are sick and that the state finances it. University education is affordable for everyone. If you are raising kids 3x the pay sounds awesome until you factor everything in, then to me it doesn’t sound enough.
You really think metal detectors and security fences are a common thing at schools in the U.S.? Maybe in some really sketchy areas of inner cities, I guess
Unless your health insurance is truly awful, or your local health system is unusually bad, you also probably have as good or better healthcare than you would in the EU.
The problem with US healthcare is the cost, not the quality. If you can afford it, you can get some of the best healthcare in the world here.
Sure, but all you're doing is effectively paying for those yourself with the pay cut. It's not just about paying for day to day things, 50% pay cut is 50% less I get to invest.
There is something to be said how amazing it is when everyone around you is also able to get the same health care no matter their income or background.
I don't meet people very often who don't have access to health care. Most get perfectly adequate coverage through their jobs, and the unemployed and elderly are subsidized by the gov't.
"The USA Today spokeswoman told CJR that they flagged the issue for Facebook after noticing an unusually large uptick in followers from the aforementioned countries. “Since we first brought this issue to Facebook’s attention, we have been in close communication with them and look forward to a swift solution that prevents this illegitimate activity from happening on our Facebook page in the future,” Maribel Wadsworth, Gannett’s chief transformation officer, told USA Today Friday."
The article suggests USA Today brought this to Facebook's attention. If USA Today had been doing this on purpose, even indirectly, that would be a bizarre move. We also have nothing from Facebook contradicting this claim.
You can hypothesize nobody asked Facebook about it or that USA Today is now lying to try to save face, but those would be hypotheses that are possible, but not currently supported by the facts. It is a reasonable interpretation that USA Today is indeed a target of some sort and not the instigator. I am also not sure exactly what the bots sought to gain from this, but I've seen enough similarly crazy things that made sense once an explanation came out that I'm willing to give some time for such an explanation to come out.
I've got no love lost for the media but they're still shining beacons of virtue compared to the people authoring and running bot networks for this sort of thing, so I don't find it that hard to trust USA Today enough to consider their version to be the most likely story. (Not the only story, but pending further data, the most likely one.)
Call me cynical, but I'm betting USA Today paid for millions of fake followers to pump up their stats (making them a more attractive platform for native advertising), got wind that Facebook was onto them and decided to break the story first and act like they were the ones to tell Facebook about it in the first place to save face. Nowhere else besides this woman's quote does it say that Facebook initiated their bot-destroying campaign after USA Today told them about all of their fake followers. They're lying, plain and simple.
2. Why would they buy so many likes? In my experience, native ad sales revolve around native metrics. Buying bots to like your page (but not visit or interact with your website) won't help you there.
It's based on being cynical due to working in marketing for 15 years. Obviously I'm only speculating. I mentioned native ad sales because sites that engage in native marketing typically sell a package that includes posting the native content to their Facebook page, which has X number of followers. The higher that number, obviously the more attractive it is.
Yeah, I don't get people's weird obsession with trying to explain away blackhat marketing when it's perfectly normal and acceptable to put your own interests ahead of Facebook (assuming you aren't breaking a real law).
