Just say I'm a sender who wants to send an email to someone on this system, and who also holds zero BTC and is justifiably deeply skeptical of anyone pushing it, exactly what steps would I need to take with this system vs hitting "Send" from Outlook?
You don't need to buy into the "Bitcoin will replace the U.S. dollar" narrative to buy $5 worth of bitcoin to send a few hundreds or thousands of emails..
No one goes to an arcade wanting to play a game and says "I don't know about these tokens, though..."
You buy bitcoin somewhere (if you can't figure this out yourself you arent trying)
And send it to whatever address this app provides to you..
No one seems to want to answer your practical question. As I understand it, you receive an email with a payment link. When paid, your email is received by recipient.
I am unsure whether you could use e.g. Apple Pay to pay directly, or if you’d have to follow the microtransaction playbook to buy a greater amount of currency which you can spend.
I do think I answered his general question, which seemed centered around his bitcoin skepticism.
The more detailed answer on how this works can be found by going to the site and clicking "How It Works"
1 Someone Emails You
2 The Gate Catches It
3 Sender Sees the Payment Page - The sender clicks the payment link in the reply. They see exactly what's being held and what it costs:
4 Pay with Lightning — 15 seconds
5 Email Delivered
If you're a foreigner visiting Bangladesh or Reykjavik, you're probably skeptical about their currency. But you'd still have to use it to buy stamps if you want to send a letter somewhere.
Something this "shape" has been coalescencing since the first tool calls were done. To draw another Star Trek parallel, this reformulation is what Brent Spiner is during the little stares and pauses made before answering a complicated but constrained problems on the show. Onward!
The numbers matter. The thermal budget a satellite is an tightly controlled thing. Large modern ones are in the order of a few to a couple of 10s of kilowatts, so something like a few to several low 10s of modern GPU compute power. Even with thousands of yet to be designed or launched satellites, it's going to have trouble competing with even a single current DC, plus it is in SAPCE for some reason, so everything is more expensive for lots of reasons.
> it's going to have trouble competing with even a single current DC
This looks like a valid argument to me, yes. Elon mentioned 1,000,000 satellites - I'm thinking about 3rd version of Starlink as a typical example, 2 tons, 60 satellites per Starship launch, 16,000 Starship launches for the constellation, comparing with 160 launches per year of today's Falcon 9...
The argument about problems of dissipating heat still stands - I don't see a valid counterargument here. Also "SAPCE" problem looks different from the point of view of this project - https://www.50dollarsat.info/ . Basically, out launch costs go way down, and quality of electronics and related tech today on Earth is high enough to work on LEO.
I don't think that was the point being made by GearSkeptic, the video creator. It was a demonstration to the lay person who may not be familiar with what 5W "looked like".
I binged ST:NG before it went away again on Netflix. The more I heard from Data, the more he sounded like where Ai should be heading: Quick, thorough reasoning but followed by explicit, tagged verification from external ground truth.
There needs to be a more meta, layered approach to reason. Different personalities viewing the output with different hats on: "That's a bold claim, champ. Search required." But I guess the current real-time, interactive nature of these systems makes it difficult to justify.
If sabotage it will be plain as day to a trained eye. I await the report. That break could also be explained by the rail heading away in that photo snapping at that point because the train pushed it out, noting the rail has rotated 90 degrees clockwise -- something did that work, and it was probably the train going out and over. I'm not a rail tie expert (nor is anyone likely to be on HN) so I don't know if this is an unusual failure mode. But there was a line change point intersection immediately south of the crash. My money is there was a fault (accidental or deliberate) there, not at this snapping point.
