One reason is the same as authors who don’t want their books trained and actors who don’t want their likeness trained. If that content is valuable it allows google to realize that value with no return to the creator.
I bet the reasons vary from person to person. My reason is because I think that these AI systems pose too great of a risk to society, and I want to make sure that I'm not helping them in any way.
I thought you wrote "fruitflies" R&D and was thinking 1) why are they hating and drosophila and 2) I don't think flies are really a comon model for Nucs BICBW. But then I reread the word...
How much of that first vial was paid for by taxpayers?
Does a single drug and associated trials really cost billions to develop? That's a year's worth of pay for 10,000 scientists at 200k/year (I suspect this is a rather high rate for most phd researchers). Most research teams are < 10 people [1]. You could fund 500 large research teams working on different drugs for 2 billion for a year. Let's say just one team, that funds them for 500 years.
Obviously there are other costs (rent, equipment, materials). But where is that money going? It doesn't seem to be going towards doing the science. It's extremely difficult to find breakdowns of R+D costs - seems to be a tightly held secret at big pharma.
AFAIK, the research done by tax payers is the underlying biology. In other words, researching that protein X is responsible for biological processes A, B, and C and changing X to Y increases A and B but decreases C.
Then, it's still the responsibility of pharma companies to figure out how to create a compound that can then safely trigger the change of protein X -> Y
If they accepted any federal money, they should be subject to federal restrictions on pricing. You don’t get to socialize the costs and privatize the revenue.
When they say vaults, they're actually vaults. 98%, according to them, of their funds are stored offline.
The only attack vectors are cryptographically, which you can pretty much rule out (safe for human error), and some kind of human attack. (blackmail, social engineering etc) But there's procedures in place there, too. The offline keys are multi-signature, requiring multiple executives in multiple locations to clear industry security protocols, then come together and commit a crime.
The remaining 2% of online funds are insured.
If anything goes wrong, it's extremely likely to be on the customer side. They offer the usual secure connections, multisig etc, and the vault adds an extra 48h withdrawal period ontop.
If you know the basics of bitcoin's cryptography, it's pretty trivial to store bitcoins on private keys that never saw the light of day, using a bunch of dice and an offline open source bit of software. But if you have to use a service, I'd say Coinbase is pretty damn secure. Just make sure your side's clean. Accessing secure systems from compromised phones/laptops is a losing battle, and as there's no real recourse with bitcoin, that's usually where things go wrong even when using secure services.
If you have control over your own keys (such as in the case of the "old" Coinbase vault) those things are a non-issue. But with the way how the new vault works a hardware wallet looks like a better solution.
Anyone have any idea of the specific mechanics they use to withdraw from the vault? Do several executives meet in a special room at a certain hour, with their keys on paper/usb, and type them into an air-gapped machine one-by-one?
I wonder how they handle a lost key, do they have to move $1 billion+ of Bitcoin to a new wallet each time?
> If anything goes wrong, it's extremely likely to be on the customer side.
Since this is also true of their ordinary wallet product, I think "security theatre" isn't totally unfair here. The only thing this really adds is the 48 hour delay.
Moreover, Coinbase has insurance that protects your assets against Coinbase getting compromised (FDIC for USD and an insurance policy through Lloyd's of London for crypto). If _you_ are at fault for your account being compromised (ie someone steals your password) then you are not protected by these insurance policies.
That's why this new vault functionality is so important, it protects your assets from personal negligence.
With these new features, all your bases are covered.
I'm not associated with Coinbase so my knowledge extends to that same article you linked. You appear to be correct so far as the text of the article goes.
In the future I imagine crypto wealth will be secured by breaking it into multiple wallets stored in vaults controlled by different organizations. That protects you from total asset loss due to institutional failure. And this type of failure isn't limited to crypto (see Bernie Madoff's hedgefund).
