In the name of avoiding a semantic debate, I'll merely point out that many things that are deterministic cannot be modeled via models that are simpler than the system which they are intended to model (such as many aspects of economics). So functionally, not all systems can be modeled and not all states can be predicted.
Either way, are you trying to determine the total energy used by the Bitcoin network, or the energy used by the particular minor that finds a block, since the last block? If it's the first, the fact that you're posing the question rather than simply using publicly available estimates implies that you need more accurate or precise data and I'm curious if public companies consider that to be a trade secret, and if it's the first or second, I could see that requiring hardware updates, again, depending on the accuracy and precision that you need.
I apologize if I seem dismissive or critical; in my field it's regularly joked that ideas are worthless because basically all of the value is in the execution and I get the impression from you that you have pretty specific data requirements, but occasionally there are revolutionary ideas that are worth some serious effort!
Given that Bitcoin is built on the assumption of greed, not benevolence, what would be the personal reward of contributing to that collective effort?
Also, given that hash per watt is not a universal constant but instead determined by a wide variety of factors such as but not limited to minor model, firmware, current settings, idiosyncrasies of individual minors, temperature, etc., while it can obviously be measured and calculated, unlike the speed of a falling object given the local gravitational acceleration, time spent falling, and initial velocity, I'd argue that energy per block is not deterministic. And then even from there, given that network conditions are constantly changing, some minor operators constantly fluctuate minor settings which cause things to get even more complicated and non-deterministic. And depending on the goal of the exercise, does the efficiency of power generation and transmission need to be considered? What about the likelihood that the power would have been otherwise used rather than simply grounded, or not generated in the first place?
Maybe I'm missing something, but to me, calculating network efficiency seems like it be anything but a straightforward deterministic process, and would instead be a fairly handwavy estimation based on a variety of measurement averages and heuristics, which is doable, but you presumably won't get too many significant digits, but maybe that's all you need!
If I ever make a product that I hope to have seen as premium, I'm going to write "super fancy" on it 😁
While I'm not physicist, by the standards of my mechanical engineer peers I do get pretty excited about mathy, theoretically stuff. That said, sometimes fitting new ideas into old paradigms doesn't work particularly well, so consider yourself warned 😁
I now know how to respond when my wife asks what I want for Christmas 😂
Realistically, you're right about an iPhone having a much lower assembly number than a person, but that makes me curious how an iPhone would compare to a bacteria, but to a point you rightfully made, there are incomparably more bacteria than iPhones. Also, while I'm tempted to think of something like a phone as having a high assembly number given the complexities of things like screens and ICs, realistically once you have one pixel and one gate, scaling things up by 1e6 or 1e9 makes manufacturing quite a bit trickier, but doesn't innately increase the assembly number. On the other hand, I suppose that a single bacteria which is made up of a bunch of organelles, each of which is going to be made up of a bunch of specialized molecules is going to have a lot of unique things rather than many copies of a few things, so I suppose it does seem plausible that a bacteria could have a vastly higher assembly number than a phone in addition to its higher copy number.
Probably the most interesting book i’ve listened to in a long time. A definition of life that doesn’t have a thousand edge cases.
Take any object that exists and try to count the number of steps it would take to assemble that object from physical realizable steps. Objects with many copies and larger assembly numbers could be a better definition of life.
https://books.apple.com/ca/audiobook/life-as-no-one-knows-it-the-physics-of-lifes/id1720088951
Personally, I feel like having many copies and large assembly numbers are necessary but not sufficient conditions for life. To me, implying that an iPhone is alive seems to be missing the point, but I could very much see coming up with a new word that represents life and its stuff. That said, if I remember correctly, she also talks about the need for evolution which could enable distinguishing between us and our stuff, but that would add some messiness that you understandably don't want, and I still don't love it as a definition since it still feels more like a test than a definition. Too much of a "shut up and calculate" vibe for me 🙂
I have a bike with an extra pivot by the seatpost so riding it kind of feels like drifting in a car. Some people ask what the point is and then just stare at me dumbfoundedly despite my best efforts to explain. Others skip the question and simply grin, ear to ear, with knowing in their eyes.
But to be fair, he doesn't know that. Hmm, does that make it better or worse 🤔
I've learned that lesson too, after more burning nostrils then I'd care to acknowledge 😂
As much as there's clearly some truth to this argument, and I see the point, like with the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, I never honestly find it to be particularly compelling since it's never acknowledged that different people have different risk tolerances, ambitions, goals, aspirations, etc. Some people clearly want a low risk, comfortable life, and some people consider that to be worse than death, and that's a good thing.
fuck yeah....
Oh commies and their fixation on power and power dynamics 🙃
I'm honestly curious who was funding telling parents that they weren't sufficiently worried about their children.
The commy state that I live in recently closed the daycare in my little because it didn't have enough bathrooms. Now bands of feral children roam the neighborhood. It'd be quaint if it didn't result from such heavy-handed bullshit.