skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nobody's FoS is under threat here. FoS does not entitle access to a broadcast medium, i.e. Spotify or YouTube. FoS simply means being able to publish your views without government censorship.

If you create your own newspaper, Spotify or YouTube you also control its editorial policy (what gets selected for publication, what gets taken down). But you can not demand that the New York Times, Spotify or Google change their editorial policy to let you publish your views. Access is a privilege, not a right.

What Young is doing here is calling in question Spotify's editorial policy for giving Rogan such a visible position on the platform. He is within his rights to do so. IF Spotify had removed Rogan instead, Rogan would need to find a new publisher but his FoS would not have been violated at any point.
the pandemic is probably one of the main reasons he feels this way
I wonder if we should rate USPS by joules per envelope delivered.
Yes. I assumed basic knowledge of the fauna of Northern Europe which includes oxen and walruses.
https://www.reddit.com/r/onesentencehorror/
Thousands opposed to Covid-19 rules converge on Parliament Hill
You’d probably have to limit it to ASCII text, and even then use fixed-width fonts just to be sure — at least one iOS vulnerability was related to word-wrapping of Zalgo-style Unicode in lock screen notifications.
You are not alone, friend.
Sometimes you have to scroll through that fucking screen and there would be a long list of identical items that only differ on some tiny details like extra ranch.. You scroll on that thing with your grease-covered gloves or might have to take them and use new ones and there are a million other things to do!
AnySoftKeyboard, it's on f-droid

It's highly customizable, far better for programing and terminal work, and my only complaint is that the spell check is vastly inferior to the default I replaced. I suppose that's to be expected when you can't leverage the kind of data Samsung gets by spying on so many people's every word. I prefer to look at it as an opportunity to improve my spelling since I've gotten pretty damn lazy letting spellcheck figure out what I intended to type on the desktop.
If there's anything halfway plausible that could've been connected directly to the Cray, this is a golden opportunity for someone to write the first demo on an exceptionally historic platform.

Good luck ever seeing it running on real hardware, though.
I am not questioning the roadmap, or that they want to have sharding. I am questioning the numbers.

Getting 2400tps per shard is already a pipe-dream, but tps does not scale linearly with the number of shards. The more shards you have, the more transactions will require cross-shard communication, bringing total tps down.

Also, the video you linked has Vitalik talking about roll-ups as the main way to scale. With roll-ups, sure, we can get to 100k tps, but like I said in this case we are not talking about base-layer anymore.
This is important to understand the gravity of AMMs.

Currency was made because barter sucks.

Cryptocurrencies were made because some people find currency to suck.

AMMs makes barter not suck.

Definitely follow advancements in AMMs, they come with some new problems that have been tolerable by the markets so far but can improve. This article is about some directions of further improvements.
Sure there is; Young and Mitchell have made an active decision to shutdown their own speech or the speech of another. The difference is taking an action against another vs taking an action against yourself.

I am sure that you will agree that determining your own outcome is freedom but forcing an outcome for others is oppression.
Worked right away for me, besides the upload form being broken on desktop.
I just ordered a pizza tonight. Went to the main site for the local pizza joint, clicked on the link to the ordering page for the proper location (there’s two of them), constructed a custom pizza order, entered my contact info and credit card, and about 25 minutes later there was a guy at the door with a hot pizza. No accounts, no apps, just a website built sometime in the nineties that works perfectly fine. Or maybe a little later, I’m looking at the source and there’s a comment in the HEAD with a 2011 date.

Took maybe a minute or two, including taking the card out. If I’d called I might have had to wait on hold while they dealt with another order, they only have the one line. I am pretty sure that’s what happened when the site was broken for a month or two last year.
> Yes, if we completely ignore recent developments in Layer 2 technologies and chains.

Yes I’d prefer to ignore it and save myself the trouble of sifting through the endless avalanche of crypto marketing for novel ideas that solve a problem other than “line go up”.

It can’t just be enough to write a conventional program that runs on a computer to help solve a problem. No, rent must be charged.
Take my post with a grain of salt. It is hard to give any real advice without knowing the full picture. You do know your situation though.

I don't remember the exact quote, but Pratchett suggested ( if you are willing to listen to strangers on the net ), and I happen to agree, that focusing on looks is a fools errand. Looks fade. Kisses get less enticing. Cooking skills only get better.

I remember my 20s and 30s through a haze of various mistakes. Eventually, I decided enough is enough and opted for 'boring' and 'normal', because, as it turns out, I am pretty boring. Is it possible that you simply did not reach your limit when it comes to hedonistic endeavors?
> 80% of what the "skeptics" attack is based on issues that are not related to "web3" but to simple Proof-of-Work consensus mechanisms.

Not surprising when the vast majority of activity is on systems still using proof-of-work. Even the term "web3" is just a blatant attempt to profit off the success of the web as a technology. Not to mention, other systems that don't use proof-of-work have their own downsides. All of them are hugely inefficient compared to non-blockchain-based technology.

> The other 20% of the issues are things that skeptics claim to be "causing harm", but either ignore to see that the harm already exists with the status quo (money laundering with crypto is actually really hard

[Citation needed]

> , and a lot more money gets laundered within the existing financial infrastructure)

Again, what evidence do you have of this? And even it's true, it means nothing when the vast, vast majority of transactions happen on... existing financial infrastructure.

Are you really going to argue that a smaller proportion of crypto transactions are laundering money?

> There is no system that will be "good for all parties involved". Ever. It's all about trade-offs. It's fine if you are okay with the status quo, but don't go around thinking that everyone working in the space is either malicious or an opportunist.

Blockchain as a technology is a solution looking for a problem. It always has been. In the early days, you could be justified in thinking that there must be a worthwhile problem out there to solve with it, and that we just need to find it, because it achieved something genuinely new and exciting. To this day, not a single problem has been solved with blockchain. It just doesn't work as a foundation for a digital currency, and for so many reasons!

As for other uses of blockchain: ethereum is certainly interesting. Smart contracts are sufficiently powerful that it will be a while before I feel we've exhausted all possible uses for them, but at the end of the day, it's still in the "solution looking for a problem" phase.

In short: if you think you've found that killer problem where blockchain is the solution, go for it! I'm not judging anyone for working on it, and seeing where it goes. The issue is with everyone already invested trying to force these magic beans onto people who don't know any better, making outlandish and unsupported claims about a (so far entirely useless) technology. There's a word for this: scamming people. It happens to be illegal. If you own crypto, then you don't have an unbiased opinion on this: more enthusiasm for crypto is directly profitable to you.
Sometimes you can but other times it isn't feasible because the mass of the brick in that configuration isn't pushing against the wall and is instead actively pulling the plugs out of the receptacle.
>Every imported Integra Type-R is a possible BRZ not sold. Every Kei truck is a possible...

Well, people have suggested that the Kei trucks might be competitors to side-by-side ATVs.

But I don't believe in this explanation because it's irrational. Most old cars are scrap, so it doesn't matter what they compete with, the number of them is insignificant.
It's ridiculous to me to even call these things web browsers anymore. A more realistic term is any-type-of-application-cross-platform engine. But that's not really concise. Why did the web have to become the primary development platform for nearly everything, with WebAssembly, WebGL, notifications, etc?

I, for one, am a fan of the fact that Gemini is growing in adoption (at least as far as I can tell). Such a nice, stout protocol.
Without data it could be completely false. And the same applies to everything I am saying!

What seems to happen is small companies do not have the same requirements as big companies (and in these companies that aspire to be big fast). I18N, Scaling, Accessibility, Security, the list goes on and on. So they "appear" more productive by feature, but some of that would be dead in the water with the same team with a big customer base or regulatory concerns.

A team of one could write twitter in a weekend (how productive is that!), and it will be fail whales as far as the eyes can see under the same load requirements.
(Not modern twitter, the more basic first versions)

It could also be my own bias, but I have never been at a company where the founding team was great technically, maybe that is because I am in the midwest, so it is not ex-googlers with deep technical knowledge. But it has always been a guy who could get barely get the job done or a friend of a friend who could code, but had a great idea/niche.
Interesting that link exists since their privacy policy says they don't sell information.
In my experience the difference is per store. Some in my city are good and some are bad, all dominos.
You had to do the whole verification over again?

At least it seems like the IRS registration is good enough to log into SSA.
Fraud & pranksters. That’s why you need to create an account & pre-pay when ordering online.

You can reduce fraud a few ways.

One is friction:

- Calling takes time. It can’t be automated.

- The pizza shop can blacklist a phone number. Acquiring new ones to keep defrauding is difficult.

- Creating an account and solving a captcha can be automated, but the barrier for entry is higher.

- Requiring pre-payment is a big one… it costs you money! If you actually pay with your own card, it’s not really even fraud anymore. If you pay with stolen details, then you had to acquire those which is really difficult.

- Emails can be blacklisted. Re-usable email domains (such as Mailinator) can be blacklisted. Creating a new email on most sites is a bit of effort.

Another is traceability (make the fraudster scared):

- Most countries require a real identity to be linked to phone numbers. Hence phone orders are a worthy gamble to accept without requiring a voice captcha, pre-payment, an email, etc.

- Pre-payment requires a real card. If it’s yours and you do a chargeback, you can be traced. Cards can be blacklisted. If you’re using stolen details, then the store can get the police involved.

The best way is detection:

- Even if you can automate phone calls, the employees taking the orders would notice patterns eventually, even in the short conversations where you give only first name, number, and the order. People are really good at detecting patterns (though it might take a few successful fraud attempts before they become aware).

- As accounts & emails get blacklisted, the online site can employee expensive third-party fraud detection software, which does work AFAIK. It looks at thing like data entry speed, IP addresses, order size, issuing card bank, etc. If fraud is suspected, it usually results in an additional soft barrier, such as SMS verification, rather than a hard block. This brings it back to phone numbers & their need for real identity verification — increasing friction & traceability.

This should explain nearly all the things mentioned by the OP. Anything else, like needing to enter your age or whatever, can be explained by some marketing executive desperately trying to hit their KPIs.
I've seen the same thing. I used a government form a few years ago that was for asking questions and it wouldn't accept a question mark (?).
Agreed. How do we know that Joe Rogan doesn't also have significant mental illness?
According to linkedin it varies and is up to 40% in some cases they measured:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ipv6-measurements-zaid-ali-ka...

A fast NAT gateway which is lightly loaded might make little difference, a heavily loaded one can make a big difference.

Google stats also show slight latency improvements for IPv6:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

Of course these are generalised stats, there will be some users with tunnels which will impair IPv6 performance, while other users might be behind multiple layers of NAT.
Domino's here has a straight 50% off for students. Lots of late pizza delivery study sessions were had.
I've been wondering why login.gov wasn't the choice in the first place, and the only thing I can think of is that id.me seems to portray itself as a fraud-busting identity service, whereas login.gov is simply a sign-in service. So presumably anyone contracting with id.me is convinced that they can help prevent being defrauded.

What I don't understand is why any customer of id.me believes id.me's characterization of how much fraud there is, and how effective they are. How many of id.me's claims have been independently verified?
Lol a grudge you’ve been carrying for quite awhile.
To run through an actual example:

1) pepesza signs the ZKP "42424242" as the correct solution to the problem in 2022

2) pepesza's signature is correct

3) pepesza's signature corresponds to a public key

4) zamadatix see's pepesza's signed ZKP value and creates a signs it as a "new" ZKP value "42424242" as the correct solution to the problem and dates it as 2021

5) zamadatix's signature is correct

6) zamadatix's signature corresponds to a public key

7) nobody can tell whether pepesza's or zamadatix's signed version of the solution actually came first without interaction, just that each claims to have signed it at the specified times.

How do you work around 7)? Alternatively if the signature instead hides the actual value of the ZKP:

1) pepesza signs the ZKP "424242" in a way that hides what that value is or otherwise prevents it from being read without further interaction.

2) pepesza's signature is correct

3) pepesza's signature corresponds to a public key

4) nobody can verify what pepesza has signed is actually a valid ZKP as they can't read the value to check and they can't interact with pepesza or they are back to an interactive ZKP

In the first scenario you haven't proven you generated it first without interaction you've just proven you signed that you claimed to have generated it first. In the second scenario you have broken the ability for anyone to validate you have an answer as they can't read your ZKP value. If you wait for someone to challenge you and then show them that's an interaction.

Is there a way I'm missing that avoids 7) in scenario 1 or 4) in scenario 2 or an alternative scenario completely?
Discrete sections, bullet points, infographics, and a touch of graphic design: that's PowerPoint. The advice I always get for PowerPoint is to delete everything in the slightly smaller font that "nobody reads anyway," so I think you're still limited to the amount of nuance you can fit into a few bullet points, unless those infographics are doing an awful lot of work.
I honestly don’t think that matters? He said pull my music and explicitly said you can have one of us not both.
Take up a hobby ? Preferably one with a club in your neighborhood. Good way to meet people with at least one common interest.
Or do volunteer work that's different from your paying job. You get to know different people and talk about different work.
Go to events, workshops, concert or whatever. You can do that online and meet people there. Alas most of the time you'll be on mute and contact with fellow attendees is scarce and difficult. Going to a physical event makes getting to know people easier is my opinion.
Covid has made it hard to do this last few years though.
"Large cheese regular crust!" Voilà!!
Young wasn't trying to remove Rogan's music. He was exercising his positive liberty, to act as he wanted: which was to not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous.

Young had (nearly) no expectation of causing change. There's a possibility he thought this really would, right now, have enacted change, but I highly doubt he was so deluded. Young simply knew he couldn't be party to such a system, and said he was unwilling to remain affiliated with it in it's current dangerous fallen state.
Local functions like that make sense if you want to access the outer function’s state - which is what’s happening here with `current`. It also makes it so others can’t use that function without having to make a separate module. Almost like a scoped “global” state. See also: IIFEs: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/IIFE
I'll be pretty annoyed if I have to go through a whole other registration after I already dealt with their old login and now id.me.
I don’t see the point of the card view at all. The list view is great though.
I used to work at a company that ran all their proprietary applications on x86 Solaris 10 and used OpenWindows (same greenish color scheme) all the way up to 2014 or so. I would have loved to have had that pizza app! :)

I still have a fondness for the simplicity of OpenWindows and how well it it handled virtual desktops. It was really cool to use on quad monitor setups.
I was trying to search for a specific phrase related to antenna gain (technical term) and kept getting results for "antenna gets". Even when putting the phrase in quotation marks.
I have not read the book but what about the campaigns in China, the Philippines, and Latin America? I don't think it's controversial to say commercial interests were a significant (if not the main) driver in those cases.
Pretty much this. It's a P2P trading platform that runs on a native Java GUI with seed server backends, people pay fees to trade on there, this goes into a consolidated funding pool under no ones control, stakeholders vote on paying contributors for new development/running the servers/etc.

Really anything can be applied for as a contribution, you can rock up right now and say you'll translate the docs into Esperanto for X amount and the community decides if that's worth paying out of the pool for this round, if rejected you can apply again next round, no hard feelings.

No one is in control, it's all decided communally with votes recorded onchain for each proposal and paid out automatically if they pass, they have coloured coins as the proxy for the votes (sort of like stock voting but digitally and with cryptographic signatures), those same coins are also what people pay for trading fees, making a closed loop between funding and advancing the DAO. If people trade less, there's less money for dev work, creating incentives for a range of stakeholders to collectively make proper choices and produce good results.

Never once have they raised money from speculators, no ico or anything. All funding has come from people using the product itself.
You've put into text format, something which most extroverts already intuitively understand.

Communicating with more than one person at a time requires dumbed down slogans and short bits of summarized information. Nuanced long form communication is a luxury that can rarely be afforded.
Eagerly awaiting matrix libraries written in pure Python that outperform BLAS.
> They rarely present any new insights.

I feel like pretty often there's a new "crypto" toy, claiming that this time it's all different, this isn't a scam, and we need to stop talking about whatever was hot last week and grasp that this latest thing is definitely the future. We get plenty of those on HN too.

So you'd expect a counter-balancing flow of cynicism, and yeah, it's not going to have a lot of new insight because scams are more the same than they are different.

If you fell for a pyramid scheme where you're supposedly involved in property investment, and then years later fell for a different pyramid scheme where you're supposedly selling nutritional supplements based on organic fruits, you might feel like these are completely different business, why are the posts saying "This is a pyramid scheme" just reciting the same things each time when the property investment and the fruit pills were so different? Well because that's just window dressing, it didn't matter, the essence of the pyramid scheme was the incentive structure, the fact that, honestly, you couldn't make money from the actual "business" only from the pyramid. How the "business" supposedly worked was irrelevant.
I think it just doesn't matter anymore because almost all editors support code folding and visual markers for it, making it MUCH easier regardless of 2 vs. 4.
Sure you can transfer ownership by going to a company, getting approval from the board to update the cap table, and then executing the transaction via wire transfer. Or you could do it near instantly on the blockchain.

And how would you write an option on your ownership stake using conventional technology? That seems like it would be prohibitively hard.

How would you use your ownership as collateral in a loan? The illiquid nature of private stock may turn some lenders off. On a blockchain, the collateral can be part of the smart contract.

Many technological advances simply make already possible things easier. For instance, checks were around since the time of the Crusades. Functionally, checks transfer money from one account to another. We also have a postal service we can use to send checks almost anywhere in the world. So why do we have digital banking infrastructure and wire transfers?
> Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure.

I can't agree with this in general. I can imagine a situation where it may be reasonable so I wouldn't tie my hands. In fact making this decision on a case by case basis is the business Spotify is in.

> In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision.

Sure but that's just this case, it's not a fundamental question of freedom of expression. This is what I mean when I say "there is no freedom of speech position". Literally everyone involved including Spotify, Rogan, Young, Mitchell, you, me, and anyone who reads and decides to reply or not is exercising their right to free expression.
Question to OP, or others: do you think tradfi and things like the stock market could benefit from AMMs? No decentralization necessary, just creating markets for crowdsourced permanent liquidity. Corporate and Municipal bond markets could get a major boon from this as they already are illiquid.