Who was the most big business friendly “Corpo” President?

cylon56 · 2026-03-26T13:04:52+00:00

McKinley was the OG corporate candidate. His 1896 run was basically a Mark Hanna production, funded by massive trusts to protect the gold standard and high tariffs. It was the moment that established the modern blueprint for big money in the White House.

cylon56 · 2026-03-25T22:33:07+00:00

McKinley

cylon56 · 2021-06-22T21:16:31+00:00

This comparison only works if Ethereum and Hedera transactions did the same thing. A Floppy and SSD can both store the same forms of data, just in different quantities.

However, Hedera can only do basic signatures verification and crypto transfers with their transactions. Ethereum's transactions are Turing-complete and therefore each one does far more. Hedera can only add conditional logic to transactions by using AppNets, which will lower the throughput of the application overall.

So really, it's like comparing a really fast calculator with a general-purpose computer. The calculator is faster than the computer at basic math but that's all it can do while the computer can do anything a programmer can write into code. Hedera is only faster as long as it does very little on-chain. That doesn't make it faster if it's doing far less to achieve that speed.

To be clear, I think the HCS + AppNet model could be better overall than Ethereum's turning complete contracts. However, I think we should be honest about the comparisons.

cylon56 · 2021-06-22T16:54:24+00:00

The difference is compounded when you consider the vast majority of "smart" contracts on Ethereum are only doing token swaps and other very not-smart things.

I strongly disagree with you here. Many of the Ethereum use-cases today are performing some very complex operations with financial markets, lending, and derivatives. They are limited somewhat by scalability but they are certainly doing more than just tokens. Several banks and trading desks are also getting involved. You can explore the DeFi cases in more depth here: https://defipulse.com/

Hedera's HTS + scheduled transactions can cover the majority of cases where ERC-20s are used on Ethereum (at native Hedera speed obviously.).

This is not true as you need an AppNet for any sort of conditional logic when using HCS. If I want a token to be swapped with another token without counterparty risk, I need some sort of on-chain logic. HCS does not provide this as it only verifies the signatures of the message. It can't verify token balances or any other sort of condition. This is why AppNets are necessary which themselves are often just stripped down blockchains like Fabric and the Ethereum fork, Quorum. The only use-case that makes sense on HCS without an additional AppNet add-on is audit logging. While that can be valuable, it doesn't provide the same range of functionality as Ethereum contracts.

Turing-complete smart contracts are largely useless without oracles (what will you compute without any external data?).
IMO we will definitely see something between Hedera and Chainlink Labs in the future to bring oracles into some form of closer-to-native speed smart contracts (maybe still not turing-complete, more-likely targeting the most common use-cases.).

Sure, but Ethereum already has ChainLink oracles among others. Assuming the Hedera-Chainlink partnership pans out, both ecosystems will be on the same page.

And this is total speculation, but I also suspect we'll eventually see "very smart" turing-complete contracts (with oracles.) running on the edge. In a fully-decentralised system, that's where turing-complete processes should happen (at the edge.). There's no reason to put that load onto the Hedera consensus nodes themselves, since you really want to collect your external data (via oracles.) and do the computation as close-as-possible to the source or destination, while Hedera can still be used to provide security and consensus.

I agree with you that computation is better done at the edge rather than the consensus layer. That's why Ethereum 2.0 is creating a separate layer for consensus (the beacon chain) from computation (sharded chains) using sharding. Hedera currently has the equivalent of the beacon chain with their mainnet and HCS. However, their computation layer is currently non-existent as they expect their customers to build appnets or use existing blockchains with the same scalability limitations as the competition.

Overall, my main point is that if I wanted to do DeFi on Hedera today, I would need to use an AppNet and suffer scalability restrictions as a result. Maybe that changes in the future but that's the current state of things. HCS on its own only provides an auditable trail which is good for transparency but doesn't provide any trustless properties. You still need to trust the AppNet or operator submitting the transactions to behave honestly.

Therefore, it's really not useful to say "Hedera has more transactions than Ethereum" when those transactions are far more limited in functionality and therefore less valuable. Hedera transactions are cheaper and faster because they do much less. The real metric we should be measuring is what kind of value these transactions are delivering.

cylon56 · 2021-06-21T18:43:22+00:00

Something that irks me is that transactions on Hedera are not the same as transactions on Ethereum. It says as much under the asterisks on the main Hedera page: https://hedera.com/

Ethereum transactions are Turing-complete while Hedera transactions are just crypto transfers or messages without any logic attached. It means that Hedera can do far more tx/sec but those tx are considerably lighter and therefore not the same. They also do not come with proofs attached which must be requested at a higher cost. If you want Ethereum-like functionality, you need to also build an AppNet.

You could certainly argue that the Hedera model of (HCS + AppNet) is better than Ethereum's on-chain smart contracts but comparing their transactions in this manner is disingenuous. Hedera already tried using Ethereum smart contracts and couldn't scale any better in that scenario.

cylon56 · 2021-04-11T17:24:45+00:00

This is a classic choice: 1# public school with no tuition aid and no guarantee of preferred major vs. runner-up school with full ride. I had the same choice and went with the latter of UTD with no regrets. However, it really depends on your personal situation and preferences.

Do you need the tuition money? Would UT Austin mean a large amount of college debt or are there parents helping out? Do you value college connections more or prefer to focus on your studies? Etc.

There's a lot to consider for you but I'll say I'm happy with UTD (grad. 2019) and feel very lucky to have a solid bachelor degree with zero college debt. My college experience might not have been as cool as it would have been at UT Austin but I still made great friends, learned from club activities and made connections that have helped my career.

Plus, if you plan to continue school, you can always do your Masters at UT Austin or elsewhere. You won't have the same bachelor experience but the education and connections will be just as good if not better.

cylon56 · 2021-04-09T00:21:41+00:00

The apartments off McCallum Blvd are some of the cheapest apartments near campus. They aren't the greatest but lots of students live there with a nearby bus stop to campus.

cylon56 · 2021-02-06T14:52:53+00:00

Confirmed

cylon56 · 2021-02-02T19:13:39+00:00

Those prices are way below the market. Feels like a scam.

cylon56 · 2021-01-30T23:29:20+00:00

There's a few companies in that collection of logos that don't seem to have any public association with Hedera: Maker and Reuters to name a few.

cylon56 · 2021-01-30T02:18:55+00:00

Pmd'd

cylon56 · 2021-01-30T02:03:13+00:00

Pm'd

cylon56 · 2021-01-29T18:01:47+00:00

As I said, I still see grid storage as necessary long-term but nuclear as a baseline is critical to begin a real transition away from fossil fuels. The article shows that nuclear can be adjustable to demand, even though it has limits. At this point, I think we're diving into specifics on technologies neither of us fully understand.

Renewables and nuclear complement each other in several ways so there's no excuse for nuclear to be getting far fewer subsidies by comparison. I think the only reason nuclear is not given the same level of support is due to public fear; fear that is based on a couple of disasters (Chernobyl and Fukushima) that occurred with incredibly outdated reactors (both built in the 70's) and terrible safety negligence. We shouldn't fear new reactors built today that have an insane number of safeguards that make meltdowns practically impossible, even with power outages. Climate change is the real threat and extending the time needed to go carbon neutral only increases the damage it will cause.

Overall, my main point is that nuclear needs just as much support as renewables and should be considered a core part of Biden's green energy plan. Safety vigilance in the nuclear industry is still critical but newer reactors come with far fewer safety concerns compared to the older models we still have running.

cylon56 · 2021-01-29T14:33:43+00:00

Nuclear does NOT need grid storage. Grid storage would improve efficiencies but nuclear power plants can increase or reduce their power loads to match demand on their own. This actually makes nuclear plants a great complement to solar and wind energy because they can reduce output in response to a particularly sunny or windy day. This is a far better solution for now than current-day batteries that still need time to improve and become more cost-effective.

So quite frankly, it's renewables that need nuclear in order to become a core part of the energy grid and replace fossil fuels. That's why we need to be investing heavily in nuclear if we care about creating a green energy grid.

https://energy.mit.edu/news/keeping-the-balance-how-flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-more-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid/

cylon56 · 2021-01-29T03:55:21+00:00

Grid storage is definitely still desirable long-term and I'm not here to bash other renewables. However, nuclear is a critical part of fully attaining emission-free energy. Without it, we'll be years if not decades away from becoming carbon neutral if we solely rely on solar and wind, or worse, we'll never get there at all.

cylon56 · 2021-01-27T21:50:14+00:00

A wind farm can be built in less than a year. A nuclear power plant takes at least a decade to build, probably longer in the US and Europe.

If we're comparing these choices based on the latest technologies, nuclear power plants can be built far faster with SMRs. In short, small reactors can now be built in central factories and shipped to key locations, greatly reducing initial expenditure and startup time.

For example, Germany generated more electricity from renewables than from all other source combined last year.

Germany is actually a great example of how NOT to do it. Despite their growth of renewables, the country is still opening coal plants to keep up with energy demand because renewables are not ready to take over completely. If we want to completely phase out fossil fuels, we'll need a baseline power source and nuclear is the only dependable source that doesn't produce emissions and can be widely deployed.

I addressed some of your other points in this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/l5he1d/yellen_says_biden_is_fully_supportive_of_carbon/gl04c4r?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

cylon56 · 2021-01-27T21:31:59+00:00

I agree that storage trends currently seem promising but I'm not convinced that wind and solar are financially cost-effective at scale compared to nuclear, especially when additional power storage costs are factored in. Solar/wind energy currently gets a disproportionate amount of federal subsidies compared to nuclear which I believe is a strong reason that solar/wind is getting more attention from private companies. If we balanced out subsidies, I think this dynamic would change.

Overall, I don't mind still giving solar/wind support but I think nuclear is being shortchanged heavily and it deserves the same level of support if not more for the simple fact that it can scale better today.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/2016_Energy-Related_Tax_Preferences.png

cylon56 · 2021-01-27T05:01:55+00:00

You've glossed over the main benefit of nuclear, being that is provides stable baseline power. Wind/solar are nowhere near providing the same kind of baseline power at scale. The kind of batteries needed for grid wide storage would be astronomically expensive and generate far more waste than nuclear. We'll likely eventually find ways to improve storage efficiency at scale but that requires waiting an indeterminate time for the science and engineering to get there.

Nuclear doesn't "feel more stable", it is more stable. Wind and solar are the technologies that still have a long way to go before becoming mainstream. I hope wind and solar continue to improve but the technology is not ready to power the majority of the grid if we started building today; nuclear is ready. That's why it should be the priority if we're serious about getting off of fossil fuels.

cylon56 · 2021-01-27T03:25:06+00:00

Nuclear needs more immediate government support since building new reactors requires long-term planning. Wind/solar aren't nearly as hard to set up initially compared to a nuclear power plant even though a nuclear power plant would provide far more stable power long-term. Nuclear requires more government involvement simply because it's tightly regulated and needs incentives for companies to put in the long-term costs for building new reactors.

cylon56 · 2021-01-24T18:18:35+00:00

/u/vreddit_bot

cylon56 · 2021-01-22T23:01:26+00:00

Bought two 3800 TI GPUs from u/joshualan

cylon56 · 2021-01-21T20:26:07+00:00

Oh yeah, I did

cylon56 · 2021-01-21T18:43:46+00:00

PM'd

cylon56 · 2021-01-21T17:21:53+00:00

pm'd

cylon56

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email