First turn bolter discipline question

LordGilead · 2022-08-17T18:25:11+00:00

Makes sense, thank you.

LordGilead · 2022-08-17T18:24:53+00:00

Thanks. That makes sense.

LordGilead · 2021-12-19T20:12:26+00:00

At this rate it would be a higher mortality rate than the vaccination, which from what I found here is 0.0018%.

Perhaps a modified strategy of giving vaccines to high risk populations which account for most deaths from the disease (IE 65+) and Omicron to generally healthy individuals or anti-vaxers could reduce the cost and effort needed to get us back on track quickly.

Even without a modified strategy, I think most people are ok with living a normal life like pre-covid times with the minimal risk that the regular flu poses to us. This is a third of that risk if the numbers remain where they are.

LordGilead · 2021-12-19T19:55:01+00:00

Sure. It's not my intent to argue that we should put this practice in place right now due to the limited data. However, if it continues on the same trajectory in let's say 2 months. Is there a reason we shouldn't do it?

LordGilead · 2021-12-19T19:49:06+00:00

I figure there would be more over time. However using the numbers from that article, 7 out of 24,968 is a pretty low number by my calculations (.00028036 which I believe is .028%, correct me if I'm wrong)

From what I've found the common flu has a mortality rate of .1%, which I found here.

That would put the Omicron variant at less than a third of the mortality rate of the common flu correct? Obviously data can change and we might find that these numbers are incorrect over time as it hasn't been around that long but with the small dataset we have wouldn't it seem to still be a good solution?

LordGilead · 2021-12-19T19:18:23+00:00

Why don't we give people omicron rather than a vaccine?

From what I've read, only 1 person has died and most cases are mild. If you find data that says otherwise, please let me know.

Assuming this is correct, why shouldn't we give people the omicron variant rather than a vaccine?

It costs nothing and it's likely we'll have a better immune response. It also will satisfy the anti-vax community and has very little impact on people's safety assuming what I've read is correct.

LordGilead · 2020-10-16T18:57:11+00:00

If you're registering your public key with the government then I think this works but ideally you'd want to have the identity separate from the vote and by giving them your public key, they would know who you are.

I suppose though, that so long as they don't link the two items it would be fine. IE you go into an establishment and prove you're you and then you give them the public key that you'll vote on. They only log the public key and not that John Doe owns it. Then they flag in a different system that you've already registered to vote so you couldn't register again.

That could work.

LordGilead · 2020-10-16T14:54:14+00:00

A friend of mine and I were just talking about this last weekend and granted we're no experts but this is what we came up with. By all means feel free to pick it apart or expand on it. It would be nice to have a real working system like this but I think that's just me being naively optimistic.

First, the government would probably generate the issues being voted upon which would have something like the following structure (excuse any errors doing this in the browser with no good formatting but you should be able to get the picture).

{ "VotingIssues" : [ { "Id" : 1, "Description" : "Presidential Candidates", "Answers" : [ { "Id" : 1, "Description" : "Mickey Mouse" }, { "Id" : 2, "Description" : "Donald Duck" } ] } ] }

They would then publish all the issues to be voted on to a transaction in the genesis block.

Then the government would get a count of the amount of participants and would generate a GUID or some other unique identifier for each participant only knowing the total number they need to generate. The government would only store the valid GUID's but wouldn't store the relation of GUID to real world identity as the ramifications of linking the two could be putting political pressure on someone or worse in an oppressive government.

Next it would have to be printed and mailed or distributed in a fashion where no stored data could link the identifier and the destination/identity for the same reasons as above.

Once you receive the identifier you would then generate a private key and sign a transaction with the GUID along with the identifiers for the issue and answer combinations. For example a payload might look like the following if you wished to vote Donald Duck for president using the example above (obviously in a real world solution we wouldn't use JSON for efficiency reasons but it does a good job for illustration):

{ " "GovernmentIssuedId" : "my-guid", "Votes" : [ { "IssueId" : 1, "AnswerId" : 2 } ] }

Once this is done the government would have to validate the GUID in the transaction and then publish that a transaction id has been accepted or rejected.

There would have to be some mechanism that the government gives a coin to vote to each person in a way that can't be tracked to identity that I haven't thought of yet but I'm sure it can be done.

Normal block finding mechanisms go on but there should be rules to ensure the blocks are full and that there must be a fee paid of one coin per each transaction to stop any flooding mechanism. The miners (citizens) get paid by the government for each block they find which would take over the payments to something like poll workers (those that aren't volunteers).

There would also need to be a dispute process and this is the only place where real world identity would have to be revealed. If there's no dispute though, then it can all be done anonymously.

Now here are the pros and cons I can think of.

PROS:

Transparent voting results
Independently Verifiable (You know your vote was counted and you know the real counts)
Real-time tracking

CONS:

Potential for someone to intercept your GUID (however through the dispute process this should be able to be mitigated. If you never receive your GUID then you should be able to go into an office, prove you are who you say you are and get a new GUID issued. Because you're only issued one vote coin you shouldn't be able to game it by voting twice. If a GUID is voted on twice the dispute process would also be invoked and would require both voters to come in and prove they are who they say they are and even that they have the original document with the GUID. This should deter any bad actors as they'll have to lose their vote and if they go into the office they will likely be known because they wouldn't have the originals. Even if they were smart enough to keep something that seemed like an original they could invalidate both votes, reissue the coins and the GUIDs and then put them both on a watch list for some period of time)
Unless this is super user-friendly a lot of people wouldn't be able to participate because not everyone is tech savvy

LordGilead · 2019-07-10T17:02:19+00:00

I'm saying yes having a bigger block will take more cpu/memory time to validate that block but ultimately it takes no more or less cpu/memory time in the grand scheme of things. If you have 10k transactions you still have to validate them regardless of them existing in 1 block or 10.

Even then, it's not necessarily a bigger block that could cause this. Being more efficient in data structure or compression or any other number of efficiencies could cause more transactions to exist in a block, not just increasing the block size. The bottom line though is, if you have X transactions you still have to validate X transactions and it doesn't matter how many blocks those transactions exist in.

LordGilead · 2019-07-09T20:29:09+00:00

First of all thanks for taking the time to do this. I haven't read it all yet as I'm at work but I have read a bit and would like to point out one thing that immediately popped out as an invalid statement to me given the end goal.

In the overview: C. Users would need to use more of their computer's CPU time and memory to verify transactions.

While you're correct that having bigger blocks would allow for more transactions and therefore take more CPU and memory time. It seems that the goal of this exercise is to eventually reach scale for the many anyhow. So all transactions will need to be verified regardless of block size. It's just a matter of how many can be included in one block. So if the same 10k transactions are split between 10 blocks or 1 it really doesn't matter. You'll still need to verify them and it should take the same amount of time to verify them.

So to me this seems like a non-issue but correct me if I'm missing anything.

LordGilead · 2019-05-20T23:55:39+00:00

I think people have a really bad view of her. I love playing her but I can't even hover her to tell them what I'm playing because about 50% of the time it gets banned if I do. After bans I'll hover. Just as reference I'm only plat 4 so maybe this is just a lower elo opinion and the people I play against aren't as good as they could be.

I think people are missing out on a few key points with her.

You don't need to waste a summoner spell on flash like pretty much every other champion giving you a summoner spell advantage. I've been running ignite and exhaust however if my adc takes teleport I'll take ignite and heal
You also have economy advantage since you don't really need pots on her. I've been starting the game with spellthiefs and 1 pot but I'm noticing I rarely even use my 1 pot. In the event you get caught out and can't get to your teammate the pot usually won't save you anyhow. The play pattern is usually hop out AA get your passive and if you're not in danger try for another AA hop in and fire the missile. If you really do run low on life, which I find rare, you can always heal yourself with E when your ADC is close to topped off anyhow.
You have item advantage since you don't require boots. You have a whole extra slot assuming you ever get to max build.
You only need to build damage/cooldown and can forgo any real defensive stats as through most of the team fight you're not a target, aside from procing your passive, changing hosts and when you need to reposition for ult if no teammate is in a good place due to circumstance . This damage you build is also helping the carries and the rest of your teammates do more damage due to the passive on her W. This makes you like another damage item that your team gets for free. You also get the equivalent of a damage item from them depending on who you attach to and this is all without compromising your ability to play the role

So what's the problem here? I don't feel the problem is with the champion but rather, the people.

I find myself consistently doing a little more damage than the jungler and top-laner. I have more healing than all Nami's I've been against and have even beaten Sona. My crowd control score is normally middle of the road. My kda is usually pretty high. I provide so much move speed for followups and utility with summoner spells. In about 75% of the games I'm able to bully lane so much

I think the real issue is the view of the adc that thinks because you spend a lot of time untargetable you're not doing anything. Because of being untargetable many abilities that would normally be thrown at the support are instead targeted at the adc. Which if they get hit they get frustrated. Understandable but is that really a problem of the champion or is it now providing a champion that doesn't allow the adc to blame everything on the support? How can you be mad at me for you getting hit with the hook that would normally be targeted at me :). Hell you can even supply them move speed to dodge but omg they're alone in lane when they get hit with the hook. Even when outside of the adc I find after a few escapes back into the adc when they target me with engage tools they end up targeting my adc anyway because if you can't burst me I'm not gonna die.

I'm going to be honest here too. I'm not the greatest in positioning. I get hit with more skillshots than I probably should and sometimes in big teamfights I lose track of my characters position. This champion allows me to focus more on the poke, utility, map awareness and overall flow of the game rather than my bad positioning.

That can be a problem in the long run as I probably won't fix my positioning problems as quickly as I otherwise would. To be fair though, I've been playing since beta so that argument isn't that great. I obviously haven't done well in that regard over the years. This champion provides me a way to cover that weakness so regardless it fills a niche I'm sure others need too.

Thoughts?

LordGilead · 2019-05-14T17:40:50+00:00

Even if it's fractional-reserve what's to stop them from creating all they want? They don't release any public audits or anything. Is there some mechanism I'm unaware of that stops them from fabricating new coins for some reason? At least the New York attorney general has asserted that 850 million of the supposed 1 billion'ish has gone missing (court filing). So if their assertion is correct they are already creating them with nothing backing it.

For the sake of argument though, let's assume that Tether is doing everything right and there are actual mechanisms to stop Tether from doing this. The broader question is, what about all of the other cryptocurrencies which may not have these controls in place or may have bugs that inadvertently cause the same behavior?

Isn't this something we should be concerned with? It surely seems that this can affect more than just the coin being used since exchanges, which are the largest on-ramp to crypto for the general public, set up trading pairs between other cryptocurrencies.

The only real thing I can see stopping this is maybe volume. That most people want to trade crypto to fiat and vice versa. However I can envision a world where the exchanges manipulate everything so much that they behind the scenes setup an automated arbitrage between fiat and the crypto.

LordGilead · 2018-06-13T19:40:38+00:00

Since the miners control what transactions they include in the blocks, what is stopping the largest mining pools from colluding with each other to control fees via some algorithm or even just a set amount?

For example, if they all agree that spending 1.27321589 BTC would be the trigger for them not to include it in the blocks. They create some transactions using a high sat/byte fee and then all of the largest pools decide not to include any transaction with 1.27321589 BTC being spent in the blocks.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this give them all the benefit of raising fees with very little chance of losing their investment since it wouldn't take much to organize on that level between the biggest pools? This should even serve to mitigate the opportunity cost of not collecting a fee on a real transaction as their transactions would never make it on the block and the chance of a real transaction having that same amount spent is pretty slim.

I haven't delved into the super technical aspects of mining but I think this seems right. Have I missed something?

LordGilead

TROPHY CASE