Sometimes 0.004% matters when the population is not homogenous.
The 0.004% richest Amreicans hold the majority of US wealth. I would not be surprised if the 0.004% top X users in terms of followers have a majority of followers as well.
So implying that because 0.004% is a small proportion of total users, this user ban is unconsequential seems flawed to me.
Being off by a factor of greater than one thousand is pretty bad.
If you think there is a wealth inequality problem, I would encourage you to call out bad information, because it is the simplest way for opponents to discredit your position.
> All of this is packaged up into a single zero-dependency C API (it doesn't even rely on libc), allowing it to be easily embedded into any popular language ecosystem.
@mitchellh That's super exciting. I'm wondering how easy it would be to integrate in the debugger frontend I'm working on. Do you already know what the C API will look like?
They didn't sign a transaction for 1 billion dollars. They all signed what they thought was a routine transfer, but in reality what they signed gave the hacker full control of the smart contract (the Gnosis Safe) in which the 1.4B $ of tokens were stored.
The hackers, having gained control of the smart contract, proceeded to empty it of funds.
Safeties applies as well, it is not the same to have a Gnosis smart contract with 1k, 1m, or 1b. They should change the smart contract to add extra steps in these circumstances, this includes Safe itself.
They didn't sign a transaction for 1 billion dollars.
They all signed what they thought was a routine transfer, but in reality what they signed gave the hacker full control of the smart contract (the Gnosis Safe) in which the 1.4B $ of tokens were stored.
The hackers, having gained control of the smart contract, proceeded to empty it of funds.
What you should do is sign the transaction on an offline computer (which is booted from a linux OS on a flash drive with only the essential software), simulate the transaction to verify it does what you expect, and then save the signed transaction to a flash drive. Then you can submit your transaction on a connected computer with confidence that you didn't sign your tokens away to someone else.
> for exponent 1, 10 and 11 you then have the same
Right. But the exponent is signed as well, so you have the same number of exponent values mapping to values between -1 and 1 (roughly exponent values from -127 to -1) as to all other values (between -inf and -1 and between 1 and inf), exponent values from 1 to 126.
> Musk claims to be self-made; he moved to Canada at age 17 with $2500 and worked his way up from there. For a while he supported himself by cutting logs, Abe Lincoln style. Nobody paid for his college and he took out $100,000 in debt. Musk’s father invested $28,000 in his first company, but Musk dismissed this as a “later round” and claimed he was already successful at that point and would have gotten the money anyway. The total for that round was $200,000, so Musk’s father’s contribution was only about 15%.
> Obviously there’s still some sense where he benefited from a privileged upbringing or whatever, but in a purely business sense he’s mostly self-made.
The difference being Elon has a history of multiple successful business and products. And didn't defraud anyone in the process. (Note he is still a narcissistic asshole but he is a successful narcissistic ass and we generally value competence higher than personality)
The 0.004% richest Amreicans hold the majority of US wealth. I would not be surprised if the 0.004% top X users in terms of followers have a majority of followers as well.
So implying that because 0.004% is a small proportion of total users, this user ban is unconsequential seems flawed to me.