How can a third party company harvest anything from that? Even if you didn't develop the LLM yourself, if you downloaded it and are running it locally with no internet access, I don't see how it'll leak info to a third party.

That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Let's say there's an image with the caption "A man looking at a fish in a tank." That's similarly a subject without a predicate, but it still makes sense as a photo caption.

What if there's no typed or visible text, and the entire chat is done via audio?

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/22/us/ford-wins-kennedy-awar...

G Suite (no s) was the old name for Google Workspace. Google Workspace includes GMail, Google Docs, Google Sheets, Google Calendar, etc., so it doesn't really make sense to say that Google Workspace has a different UX than Google Docs, if Google Docs is part of Google Workspace.

Disclosure: I work at Google, but not one of the listed products.

The total amount of work must be in direct relationship to the amount an attacker can gain from executing a 51% attack. It's not clear to me that if bitcoin doubles in price, an attacker can gain double the amount from a 51% attack. A 51% attack doesn't allow direct theft of other people's bitcoins. It allows double spend attacks, denial of service attacks, and through those, the ability to tank the price of bitcoin.

>Just think about how your "If it's using Europe levels of electricity at time X, then after a block reward decrease, it'll use Europe/2 amount of electricity" sentence doesn't make any sense, because eventually in 2140 or so there will be no block rewards, so according to your logic no electricity at all would be required to run the network.

It's possible for a block reward to be larger than necessary for security. In that case it can go through several halvings that purely improve efficiency without putting the network at risk. Yes, at some point, with a sufficiently large number of halvings, the network would be at risk, but that doesn't mean we can't have some efficiency gains before that happens. Your previous comment referred to bitcoin using more electricity than Argentina. That's a statement about how much electricity it's currently using, not a statement about how much electricity it needs to use to get the necessary amount of security. It might be possible to decrease the electricity usage while remaining sufficiently secure.

I wouldn't consider either of them to burn an identity.

This "hole" in E2E is the same as any malware on the device. If the device cannot be trusted, no form of E2E will work. The E2E encryption is functioning properly. The problem here is completely unrelated to E2E encryption. E.g. you could have a personal notes app that makes no network traffic, but generates notifications occasionally regarding your notes, and it could have this same problem, even though no messages are sent over the network, and in fact the phone could have all networking capabilities disabled and still have this problem.

>This makes sense and there's really no way around it without a change from Apple.

There is a bit of a workaround: Signal has a setting to not put message content in the notification. That fixes this AIUI.

Adoption doesn't necessarily correlate completely with price. Price can increase without much adoption, due to speculation. In theory, adoption could also increase without much price increase.

Electricity isn't the only requirement for mining. Hardware is also required. Miners can't simply use lots of additional electricity if the hardware isn't there. Yes, new hardware can be manufactured, but it takes time.

The block reward decreases over time. If it's using Europe levels of electricity at time X, then after a block reward decrease, it'll use Europe/2 amount of electricity. This decreasing also disincentivizes manufacturing new hardware.

Miners can have different efficiencies, due to different types of hardware, and different types of electricity generation. So while the least efficient miner will be operating at near breakeven, the most efficient miner will be making much more profit. So while the least efficient miner will use $1M of electricity to mine a $1M coin, the most efficient miner will use less dollars of electricity.

Another benefit is if your hands are full. For example if you're cooking or driving.

Another benefit can be speed. If you're doing something in your house near the smart speaker, it's probably faster to ask it a question than to pull your phone out of your pocket, unlock it (I only have a password, not fingerprint/face ID), and type in the query. For people who are slow at typing, this benefit is larger.

Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on anything related to this.

[1] https://remotepeople.com/countries/ghana/average-salary/

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

If the receiver doesn't immediately move the bitcoin, the receiver is at risk of Satoshi stealing them by retaining the private key and moving them later.

Even if the receiver trusts Satoshi, if the receiver wants to spend the bitcoin on anything, there's the same problem again.

Losing access by intentionally deleting the keys? That agrees with my point that he knows it would cause problems to spend them, and decided not to spend them.

Losing access by accidentally deleting the keys? Would Satoshi really be that careless?

>The idea that if his coins move everyone would panic is a post-2015 idea

Here are 2 people in 2013 expressing that idea: [4][5].

[1] https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-...

[2] https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/more-on-block-mining-history-...

[3] https://bitslog.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accu...

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5569077

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5569346