Actually it depends on the Product you are selling. The more confusing the Product portfolio, the more the consumer needs a chat feature.
Also, a product which is of ancillary type needs persuasion to be sold to consumer where it needs chat feature the most.
If most consumer lands in the page and know what he/she needs, there is obviously no need for such feature.
What I meant is most of the Large Organizations are now using Workday which is a SaaS based solution and generally considered modern version of PeopleSoft on the HR solutions side.
Many large companies are also moving away from SAP and Oracle on ERP side of things to Workday Financials too but at a slower pace.
>This is similar to Microsoft not allowed Chrome as default browser in Windows
I don't ever recall microsoft preventing you from changing the default browser on windows. How do you think google chrome got started in the first place?
I thought the whole point of Bitcoin and similar cyber coins is a decentralized system. But it appears it is not the case. Still the infra is controlled by certain large private corps. Some of them known to Public and some are not. What if this controlling entity which has access to the code commits purposefully did "exploit commit" and take the money out of the system or what not. All it took is couple of approvals to a pull request. This is centralized system to the core.
In this case it's the bridge that's fairly centralized. There wasn't any hard forks or other manipulation of the underlying blockchains (except for sending transactions on them).
Exactly. Vitalik Buterin even shared his concerns on the fundamental security limits of cross-chain bridges earlier this year:
> For example, suppose that you have 100 ETH on Ethereum, and Ethereum gets 51% attacked, so some transactions get censored and/or reverted. No matter what happens, you still have your 100 ETH. Even a 51% attacker cannot propose a block that takes away your ETH, because such a block would violate the protocol rules and so it would get rejected by the network
> Now, imaging what happens if you move 100 ETH onto a bridge on Solana to get 100 Solana-WETH, and then Ethereum gets 51% attacked. The attacker deposited a bunch of their own ETH into Solana-WETH and then reverted that transaction on the Ethereum side as soon as the Solana side confirmed it. The Solana-WETH contract is now no longer fully backed, and perhaps your 100 Solana-WETH is now only worth 60 ETH. Even if there's a perfect ZK-SNARK-based bridge that fully validates consensus, it's still vulnerable to theft through 51% attacks like this.
> I thought the whole point of Bitcoin and similar cyber coins is a decentralized system. But it appears it is not the case.
It's the case in Bitcoin, but not as much in Ethereum and other ecosystems. The latter have a track record of compromising on that principle to bail out thefts enabled by shoddy engineering practices (this, The DAO, etc).
Crypto is not monolithic. Bitcoin is still by far the most decentralized token. Many new crypto currencies have more or less centralized characteristics.
But in this case, the bridge is a smart contract. You too can create a smart contract with full power given to yourself. So being a smart contract does not say that it’s centralized or decentralized. A decentralized smart contract is called DAO, if we omit some details.
You are removing one problem with another. In FIAT govt control flow of money. In bitcoin, you give that control to some private companies who manufacture mining rigs and energy producing companies. Except, the cost of the alternative is you see increase in price of silicon tech and energy costs for regular use. I bet the supply chain issues you are seeing now a days with silicon products and high cost of crude can be attributed to increase in price of bitcoin.
> In FIAT govt control flow of money. In bitcoin, you give that control to some private companies who manufacture mining rigs and energy producing companies.
You forgot Elon Musk's tweeter account, which seems to have a lot of sway for reasons opaque to me. Then again, I think those fraudulent bitcoin-giveaway bots that pretended to be Elon primed the pump for him
I would say that $65M is a good investment from Robinhood perspective. As it has grown significantly since then due to this. The fact that SEC enforcement is 2 years in a high frequency world is in itself means it is just token enforcement. The trading world we should have enforcements as the trade happens.
No, @hnarn is right. And you don't really "get" this until you start maintaining an OSS repo (I speak from experience). For years, I was very critical of Linus Torvalds and his brusque attitude. Then I started a few moderately-popular OSS projects, and the entitled masses started pouring in.
After a while, it's hard to refrain from telling people to just screw off.
I think this is one of those cases where one might say the customer (or user, in this case) is always right. But there are always customers who will just find something to complain about, and often (like when the product is a free community service) they're simply not worth having as customers.
edit: Personally, I've been a heavy user and supporter of CentOS but I've almost never referred to it as CentOS. Because the point is to be binary compatible with RHEL, and it's then naturally almost the same thing as Oracle Linux and Scientific Linux, etc. So I would simply refer to "EL5" or "EL6" in code or other places. This probably won't be any different.
Apple just wants a deal to be made with Facebook for $X Billion to keep that feature enabled. Just like Apple deal with Google to just keep Google as default search engine in its OS.
Not convinced. Apple's spend a lot of money on privacy focused branding, and I'll not sure it makes sense for them to contradict that.
What did out to me is where these ads are being published ... in newspapers ... which are probably read by old legislators. This is Facebook firing shots across the bow to threaten anyone who would threaten their monopoly.
People are forgetting that Apple itself is playing monopoly by only allowing Google to target users by making backroom deals and not allowing other players. Basically, Apple sided with Google here instead of Facebook. Also, like you mentioned it is just privacy focused branding and it doesn't necessarily actually provide privacy.
