21 sats \ 0 replies \ @0fje0 5 May \ on: Jack Dorsey departs Bluesky board tech
Appears to still be a developing story. We'll probably hear more in the coming days. Interesting.
It may have been possible back in early 2020 (when this review of the HTC Exodus 1s was published), but as the article actually revealed: even then it was already rather impractical.
The "limitations" they referred to are probably even more limiting 4+ years on.
Anyway, it was still an interesting read. Just no longer all that relevant, I think.
Probably over-hyped. I mean "BIGGEST Crypto Debate In History"?
Could be interesting to watch, though.
Starting today at 7pm ET:
Gaming rewards will be the end of SN
I've been thinking the same thing... Haven't said it, though.
Mark my words.
Thusly (book)marked. :)
A great read, thanks. A commentor below that article wrote:
The most influential thing I ever read was from the Applesoft Tutorial:
"There is nothing you can do by typing at the keyboard that can do any damage to the computer. Unless you type with a hammer. So feel free to experiment. With your fingers."
That brought back some fond memories!
A friend of mine ordered an Apple IIe and had it delivered to me, because he didn't have a fixed address at the time. When it arrived, I phoned him with the news and he asked me to unbox it and "see if it works".
After switching it on, I had no idea how to determine if it worked, so I just literally started to hit every key on the keyboard starting from the top left corner and working my way - very methodically one by one, mind you - down the whole keyboard and watched as the characters appeared on the screen.
Hmmm... So it "works"? I mean, the characters do show up, right?
It wasn't until I came to hit the <Enter> key that the screen suddenly did something: It said "Syntax error." Great, I guess it works!
I saw a familiar name in the credits for this track and wanted to see if it was who I thought it couldn't possibly be. Turns out it is in fact the Snowden.
Thanks to a refractive lens exchange procedure yesterday, I woke up to spectacularly clear vision this morning. Made possible by stacking sats, of course.
The interviewer in the linked article (Frank Corva) asks:
On the topic of America and KYC-free bitcoin, do you see people using Azteco because they want KYC-free bitcoin?
And the answer he gets has nothing to do with KYC.
These were the events that lead to the response I quoted:
After seeing several mentions of Azteco in your typical how-to guides for obtaining non-KYC bitcoin here on SN and elsewhere, I decided to try them out.
At the time (around a year ago if I remember correctly, could be a bit earlier) the only option I could find to obtain Azteco vouchers without KYC, was to buy a different brand of gift voucher with cash from a local grocery store that sold them. The store had no knowledge of bitcoin, but the brand, 1Voucher, was listed on the Azteco website as being redeemable for bitcoin.
One could also buy Azteco vouchers via a number of other payment options, but those (again, at the time) all required KYC, so I wasn't interested in going that route.
So I bought a "test" 1Voucher for a small amount and easily and near instantly redeemed it on the Azteco website for bitcoin - although the Azteco fee did seem somewhat excessive. Great, what could go wrong?
Rinse and repeat weekly, slowly increasing the amount of each cash purchase & redeem cycle.
Then I reached the limit of what the grocery store could process for a single 1Voucher. Which was still a rather insignificant amount, by the way.
Then by around voucher 5 or 6 in as many weeks, suddenly the Azteco website would not redeem the voucher. OK, that's odd. The error message does say to "please try again later", so maybe they're having some technical issues, right?
Except, it never got resolved regardless of the number of retries. Which is when I decided to "Contact support" as listed on the Azteco website to find out what the issue was.
Azteco "support" advised that I should use one of the other payment options available. When I stated that those options all require KYC, I got the response I quoted earlier. I stopped communicating with them at that point.
I only discovered afterwards that the name of the Azteco support person was the same as that of the founder of Azteco.
I'll just leave this here for you to consider. A response I got from the founder of Azteco a few months ago. (Very lightly edited to remove personal information.):
We don't sell "Non-KYC BTC". This is a term that comes from Bitcoin Twitter, and is not based in reality. If you have a concern about your credit card being connected to Bitcoin purchases, all you need to do is have two wallets, and send all the Bitcoin you buy to another address. The wallet you receive Bitcoin on will not have any knowledge of the second wallet address you control, and so you can deny you know anything about it. Theoretically.
In any case, the amounts you can buy from us are insignificant, and there is a near zero probability that the government is in any way interested in you and your purchase of Bitcoin. That is the truth about this, and I suggest you behave in ways that match reality and not the narratives of foreigners with mental health issues in first world countries.
I've just zapped you
Thanks, but that should probably have gone to @k00b instead. He effectively crafted the ppq prompt. I would not have known to ask the question that way.
Just zapped you back for posting the article! As a solar panel user myself, these things interest me directly.
how much energy does a photon carry and how much energy is required to free the most promiscuous electrons.
That struck me as a fun question to ask ppq.ai. So I did. Here's what it says. It may be pure gobbledygook, of course, but the 25 sats spent on it may just provide a few clues to a proper answer:
The energy a photon carries is given by the equation:
[ E = h \nu ]
where:
- ( E ) is the energy of the photon
- ( h ) is Planck's constant ((6.626 \times 10^{-34}) Joule >seconds)
- ( \nu ) (nu) is the frequency of the photon
To determine how much energy is required to free the most readily liberated electron from an atom, we refer to the "work function" of the material. The work function is the minimum energy needed to remove an electron from the surface of a solid (typically a metal). This energy varies depending on the specific material.
For example, the work function for cesium, which has one of the lowest work functions of any metal, is about ( 2.14 ) electron volts (eV). Other materials can have higher work functions; for instance, platinum has a work function of approximately ( 5.65 ) eV.
To illustrate, if we're dealing with a photon intended to eject an electron from cesium, you would need a photon with an energy of at least ( 2.14 ) eV. The frequency (\nu) of the photon required could be calculated from the photon energy equation above, rearranging it:
[ \nu = \frac{E}{h} ]
Substituting the values:
[ \nu = \frac{2.14 , \text{eV}}{4.135 \times 10^{-15} , \text{eV} \cdot \text{s}} ]
[ \nu \approx 5.17 \times 10^{14} , \text{Hz} ]
This frequency corresponds to light in the visible spectrum, specifically near the violet end.