In practice, seconds after a transaction has been signed and broadcast, it is already very unlikely to double-spend. Miner incentives are such that the first-seen transaction is the most likely to be used. A delay of a couple seconds is sufficient to account for network-propagation lag.

You wouldn't do this for high-value transactions, but there's some threshold where real-world risk is lower than the convenience of a fast transaction, and that threshold is reasonably high.

In my state, you must start with arbitration but you have zero obligation to accept that decision and can sue regardless of outcome.

Replication is difficult, and particularly difficult for novel processes where the important variables are not well understood. It could be that the methods were reported as accurately as possible but still leave out critical detail(s).

One of the primary reasons it is a model is due to transient expression in the leaves via TMV. You can quickly assay many constructs on the same plant with a simple overnight experiment.

There are heirloom sweet corn varieties, but they have to be cooked in minutes/hours from harvesting to remain sweet.

As far as the starchy corn, you won't get a lot of flavor difference.

I have little doubt that it can produce impressive figures in very specific conditions - many designs do - but I doubt they see vastly improved real-world performance.

That isn't surprising at all; wind generation scales very very well with larger size. If it actually achieved 42% at that size, it would still be a major innovation.

But that's also a strong claim that requires very strong evidence. The reasons for inefficiency at smaller scales are fundamental: higher drag to lift. Essentially what they're doing is using the existing building as part of the device to direct wind. This is not a new idea, and in favorable conditions you can get some impressive numbers. But in real life..

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/storage/small-wind-turb...

Most miners stuck it out to the bitter end. Hashrate was only down around 20% from the peak at the switch to PoS. Then it takes a few days to take apart the rigs and get them ready for listing. And that's only for the ones that aren't trying to mine something else, or simply are in denial.

But the main counterpoint to the GPU supply increase is the pent up demand from two years of usurious GPU pricing. A lot of people are ready to finally upgrade as soon as prices are reasonable.

Expect the market to soften - and it is, 3060ti prices are down like $40 over a couple days on eBay - but I also wouldn't expect bargain prices.

The 3090 is notoriously bad for mining because it has memory chips on both sides of the board, leading to more heating in one spot and poor cooling for the 'back side' chip. Other cards tolerate it much better, but it can be an issue.

So while overall mining cards should be good, there are some specific issues to watch out for. A failed memory chip is not an easy fix, requiring a reball/replacement of that chip.

Labs generally specialize, as there's a long learning curve to climb before you can reliably execute even 'bedrock' molecular biology protocols like immunoassays. Small ambiguities in protocol can lead to failure, and there's always simple human error involved that can tank a result. Generally you'll have positive controls available to tell you whether a protocol was successfully executed, but there are cases where that's simply not practical.

In the end, 'failure to replicate' does not necessarily mean there was anything wrong with the original work. Positively concluding that requires a lot of additional work that could explain the discrepancy.

For a higher end card? Yeah it could go either way.

Alzheimer's research having a focus on amyloid plaques makes perfect sense in light of so much data implicating it as a mediator of the disease. It's hard to say, even in retrospect, whether this focus was warranted or not. Allocation of scarce resources is hard, and everything comes at the expense of something else. It's easy to pick out 'fringe' ideas that bore fruit and lament how hard it was for them to gain traction. But what about all those that didn't? Were we really balanced too strongly to dominant ideas, or is science simply difficult?

You simply can't address this issue with the recent success of new or fringe ideas. You'd have to do something like systematically look at proposal acceptance rate vs. some subjective measure of heterodoxy vs. ultimate success. I just don't see compelling results from something like that.

We've being doing genetics for decades. Molecular biology without mutant studies wouldn't exist. It's the foundation of the field.

All this is is a difference in scale. But it is a very crude tool; really understanding gene function involves studying it in relevant contexts. Looking at cells in tissue culture can give you some ideas or hints about how it functions, but the critical insight might require certain cell types or gene regulatory environments.

What data like these do is inform hypothesis generation and refine the interpretation of genomic data. It is important work, but does not replace doing actual biology.

What you're talking about is essentially saying we just invented molecular biology. Which is obviously not the case.

Genes that aren't translated into protein sequences (noncoding genes) can create structural RNAs as with Ribosomes, microRNAs that have regulatory functions, etc.

There are lots of non-gene genetic elements that do things, though. Many are involved in gene regulation, affecting the transcription rates of nearby loci through a variety of mechanisms. There are also vast swaths of inactivated transposons, retroviruses, and other repetitive genetic sequence.

People focus on the algorithmic aspect of cryptocurrencies, but this is simply the weedy details that enable certain properties of interaction. Nothing terribly interesting has happened here since the initial idea of using proof of work to regulate authorship of a blockchain. It is the social aspect that has been interesting to follow. Alt coins, forks, and the enduring primacy of Bitcoin.

A bidet is just a spigot with a valve. Open valve, blast ass, get clean, close. Unless you have bizarrely cold water, this is all you could ever want or need.

The mining effort depends simply on the reward, and the reward is calibrated to the security needed. Bitcoin is highly secure, but the security model is essentially 1:1; if the network is secured with a billion dollars of mining effort, it will cost on the order of a billion to attack it. So it's expensive.

PoS can have a better security model, maybe 1:100 against network attackers. So you can reduce mining rewards and maintain a given security level.