Me too! Babies and toddlers brains are like sponges. We started teaching my baby 3 languages since birth (essentially I always spoken with her in my native language, my wife in hers and gets English from living in the US). She’s not even 4 yet an fully fluent in all three and seemlessly jumps back and forth between them. (To my surprise, she doesn’t mix words from the different languages in the same sentence)
>> To my surprise, she doesn’t mix words from the different languages in the same sentence
I knew two brothers that would mix words from different languages while speaking to each other because they shared the same set of languages and presumably used the best words to express their thoughts.
Your daughter probably knows other people generally speak and understand one language at a time and just conforms because its most effective.
I'm not sure if or at what age it might be good to start mixing languages with others who can.
If you look at the rate of "new" word use after the first spoken word its very clear that word acquisition and categorizing occurs for a long period before that first word is ever spoken.
Speaking to babies is incredibly important for linguistics but probably for all types of complex brain function, I don't think there is an upper bound on how many words we should expose children too.
There's a lot more to language learning than being a "sponge". Virtually all the grammar we learn is productive/ creative--that is, we apply it to new words, and say things we never heard anyone say before. And the grammar is implicit in what we hear, so children need to extract it in a form that can be generalized to new thoughts and words.
This is why learning Latin the way I did (very methodically and technically, with no real speaking/responding) makes you good at parsing it, but not at speaking it. There are schools today where it's taught as if it were a spoken language.
Exactly. “Tracers in the Dark” (https://a.co/d/aos3Nka) does a good job of telling that story and a couple of others from the early days of blockchain analytics
#2: the author wrote "This attack is not realistic. ... This is why everyone needs to run their own node"
#3: "digital forensic approach can still reveal sensitive information by examining off-chain artifacts such as memory and wallet files"
So...
#1 seems to have been mitigated.
#2 seems to not be an issue if you run your own node.
#3 seems to not be an issue if you don't let others do forensic analysis on your own computer (not the Blockchain).
It's good that people do this research to help make Monero better. I am not criticizing the people that published what OP linked to. But of course OP's post is like saying "What makes you think paint is safe? Here's a post about how paint used to include lead."
The fact that it's delisted from most exchanges because of its privacy features; if it was as traceable as Bitcoin, then the feds would allow it. What I see from these links is that it's not fully "traceable" and more educated guessing via heuristics.
Lightning (A layer-2 network based on Bitcoin) is similarly untraceable as Monero, without being an actual cryptocurrency. Yet the fed doesn't seem to concerned, probably also because few people and institutions understand Lightning, and the fed is not one of them or doesn't want to go against Bitcoin.
Old paper, old link. Most of it is not relevant anymore today. They also do not compare, as Lightning is NOT a cryptocurrency nor does it try to be. It is still Bitcoin.
Please kindly provide evidence for your claims and please be factual to point the current privacy concerns still open today and what has been addressed (if at all).
Lightning is a token representing bitcoin, same as USDT representing USD.
reply