Why? Instead of creating an event handler that changes a property you declare same thing as binding. Why this creates more issues than manual event handlers?
Why would anyone use 200M model when 1B model is available? The company increase its bet with each iteration increasing risks. It blow up at some point because it cannot guarantee 2B return after 1B investment.
To GAAP point - 200M or 1B or 10B is not a loss but cash converted into an asset. It won’t affect the bottom line at all. Unless the company re-evaluates the asset and say it now cost 1M instead of 200M. This would hit the bottom line.
>My server was up for 3.5 years with no outages because I just didn't touch it.
Problem #1 keeping OS current. Chances are you run an outdated OS with some RCE vulnerabilities.
Problem #2 setup is hard to scale organizationally. How to give access to the server to other people? How to monitor what they do? How to replicate server setup across teams and keep it in sync? So on and so forth.
In an org. something always change, and you have to touch servers as a result.
I chose to build an L1 for several reasons. One major factor is the desire for fair currency distribution. Additionally, I wanted to ensure instant finality to prevent block reverts during trades.
They chose to use an L1 for several reasons. The major factor is creating their own blockchain allows them to redistribute wealth to their own wallets. Additionally, they wanted to ensure instant finality so that no one can revert the fraud.
> You don’t give detailed prompts. You give objectives like “Refactor the API layer for scalability and update all related documentation.” The AI agent then plans, executes, tests, and reports the results.
lol, I wonder if the author (if there is a human author behind this) ever tried this in production. I did multiple times, never worked for me. All it did is produced a tone of spaghetti code and lots of overlapping tests with medium coverage. I’ll be fine with it if I could use AI to evolve this code without ever reading and understanding it. But we are far from it as of today.
Crypto is qualified as property and regulated in a very similar way. There is a market for borrowing using tokens regulated by digital assets act (цифровые финансовые активы).
It was a legit question. Your link is about EU regulation, not actual transfer mechanics.
Your bank does not have your money because it has lent it to someone else. If a bank has 5 business days to make a transfer then it can buy bonds, put money into an overnight deposit and do many other things. If a bank has 10 seconds then it has to maintain larger reserves which is a pile of money doing nothing.
A good bank would model cash flows to predict capital requirements and borrow from the CB as needed. Instant payments increase bank’s capital requirements and reduce margins. An EU bank cannot borrow from US Fed Reserve. Therefore EUR -> USD transfers are more problematic. The bank has to keep some USD buffer and/or be able to borrow in USD. Lenders will do fraud checks at various steps in the process, some steps can be manual. It does not happen at the time of the instant payment but rather triggered by it at a later time. Still, the end result is bank needs more capital.
As a user of fiat financial system you would observe:
1. Cross border instant payments are rare.
2. Large instant payments (>1M) do not exist.
3. Large payments may stuck at a middleman. Especially true at the time of political instability, even more so between unfriendly countries (e.g. China - India).
reply