skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This shouldn't matter. In an ideal world, if someone wants a website online and they are complying with the local laws, they should be able to have a website online. I don't think we need to force individual companies to host it, but we should restructure the internet so the decision is out of their hands.

Currently we have a fatal flaw where ISPs are able to start disrupting traffic to certain IPs. They aren't hosting it, but they are a middle man from end user ISPs to the host ISP.

It would have been nice if all the crypto bros had built something actually useful for decentralized hosting rather than hype scams that don't work for real world usage.
If you choose to use straight containerd then you can use nerdctl compose too.
> Zoom out. Imagine this hypothetical paradox. An abstract problem. Therefore…

This doesn’t tickle me. Maybe if I imagined myself as an Asimov character.
Someone should re-invent USENET.
Why did anyone trust FTX either? The trust was really based on the credibility of the person running it, and the fact they had bailed out some other failing exchanges. But there were no hard facts.

In fact it seemed like all it took was a public quarrel with the founder of another exchange to start the ball rolling toward total collapse -- again, because it was all based on personal credibility.
It seems clearer that FTX (and Alameda) ran off the cliff following the SOL/Anchor/Celsius debacle, and this (and Binance's involvement) is really only the splat of them hitting the ground.
So in purchasing power terms, you have significant exposure since you now have to sell X% more of your holdings to pay fiat denominated rent.
Scientific progress proceeds one funeral at a time. Preferably by natural causes.
I focused a lot on economic history in school and to be able to live through the insane unfettered scam bullshit that was the framework for all these financial laws we have today but without the second-order effects of total economic collapse (but with enough money to actually be interesting) has been such a gift for me.
> Elixir is not Erlang [..] its variables are mutable etc.

It is factually untrue that Elixir's variables are mutable. What you're likely confused about is "variable shadowing" and in functional languages where values are immutable (and they are immutable in Elixir as well as Erlang) it's a very common pattern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_shadowing
Please do not use this. JIT is designed with tiered compilation in mind for a long time. I cannot stress this enough, the number in the above comment is not representative. Using this setting is highly discouraged.

Please use BenchmarkDotNet to get accurate numbers!
This came up in the Tim Ferris interview with Jim Collins [0].

Collins has a notion called the "Hedgehog Concept". Which is the same as you're noting, but a bit more concise.

- What you love to do

- What you are encoded for (not just good at)

- What you can be paid to do

I think the reframing of the 2nd bullet is important. There's a difference being good at something and being encoded for something. You can be good at math, but relative to someone encoded for math, you're going to face significantly more friction.

This is a hard question and requires a high degree of self-honesty, but I believe it is the crucial differentiator in identifying your "purpose".

0. https://tim.blog/2019/02/20/the-tim-ferriss-show-transcripts...
They are actually defined as a matter of degree. The traits are guidelines. If x, y, and z are outside normal range, the following could be descriptive of a known category of disorder, which guides treatments.

Some disorders could simply be the result of living in a modern society. Things like clinical depression, borderline personality disorder, bipolar, schizophrenia, and some PTSD are severe enough to exclude that as a primary cause.
See: hedonic adaptation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill]
Made an absolutely tasty short, now looking to slurp this dip. New car off the past 2 days alone.
If you're in SF, I'll happily do an OTC deal with you.
> Zero real finance people

Debate old as time. I agree with you but this happens every cycle. RenTech doesn't have "real finance people" either. Maybe the problem was that they just had the wrong people, not their level of realness.

And Alameda seemed to be mainly people from Jane Street? There is a difference between trading firms with good tech (Jane Street) and firms taking prop risk (DE Shaw)...just based on what has been released, I agree that they didn't seem to know what they were doing. Unfortunately, the market doesn't know you went to MIT.

And they wouldn't have hired PMs with decades of experience, because no PM with decades of experience would have worked there.
Coinbase, which happen to be a Y Combinator unicorn, is saying they're totally fine. Credit where it's due: Coinbase never ever dealt with Tether/USDT. They say the $42 billion of USDC they minted are all backed and that all the clients' assets on their site (USDC/coins/EUR/USD/etc.) are all backed 1:1.

I hope Coinbase is and stays an honest (and regulated) player in that crazy space:

https://www.coinbase.com/blog/our-approach-to-transparency-r...
You don’t find your purpose, you develop it.

https://youtu.be/3rO9DiK7DOg
> What if all these areas where we use memory-unsafe technologies were replaced by memory managed technologies like C#, Python, Go, etc. Sure, lots of things would run slower (raw TLS in Python, yay), BUT would there suddenly just be less exploits?

Yes. We'd see at least a 30% reduction in exploits, and in the overwhelming majority of use cases the slowdown wouldn't be relevant. Software in those areas would also get written a lot quicker.

The trouble is that there's no incentive to do this, at any level. Software would probably crash more (because one of the biggest ways memory-safe languages avoid security issues is by turning silent corruption into visible crashes). No-one cares if you deliver the project in 50% less time than it would otherwise take (you're still missing the schedule), but everyone cares if it's 50% slower on a meaningless microbenchmark. And C bros no longer get to slap each other on the back about what l33t h4x0rs they are. (I suspect, cynically, that one of the reasons Rust is the language that's finally getting to replace C, is that it's that rarest of memory-safe languages that puts an equal amounts of (mostly) pointless difficulty on the programmer).
Seems like things car owners worry about no matter what; even if the materials have no possibility of output.
Agreed, but have we ever had an asset type that is accessible to pretty much every single person in the world? I get that it cannot go up all the time and I'm sure the price will get more or less stable at some point in the future. On the other hand, since the asset type is so widely accessible, it could go up proportionally to the population of the Earth. Just speculating.
Yeah. The transparency of smart contracts has ensured that there's no scams in that space.
I always see advocates for crypto bashing central exchanges, but at the same time they bemoan the slow pace of adoption. I just don’t see it ever being even remotely main stream without central organizations. It is far too much work managing it all yourself even for tech savvy people. Just the process of downloading a wallet and downloading ledger is a huge pain in the ass. And then have to do it for every crypto if you’re not using a multi-wallet!
No thanks, I'm going to keep calling abort (ANSI C, 1989) to indicate "control stops here":

Code after an abort() call is unreachable. (Or after any function attributed noreturn).

GCC and Clang know this, and do things accordingly.

For instance, I've seen GCC emit code which assumes that ptr is not null after ASSERT(ptr != NULL), because the custom ASSERT macro called an __attribute__((noreturn)) function in the null case.

abort() has defined behavior; it terminates the program abnormally, as if by raising the SIGABRT signal.

Your own function attributed __noreturn__ can have whatever behavior you want it to have. The one in the ASSERT macro I alluded to above calculates and prints a backtrace and other useful information.
And do those vendors use crypto to buy from their suppliers? Otherwise, they have to raise their crypto denominated prices as the exchange rate falls and you're still in the same boat as selling it yourself.
I believe that if you buy the OS, it comes with printed documentation.
Plenty of ways to short bitcoin. Whether you will be able to actually collect your profits – who knows.
About $0.82

https://www.lowes.com/pd/8-in-x-4-in-Clay-Red-Cored-Standard...
It's quite the opposite: in recession the dollar is getting stronger (buys more shares of stocks / houses).

Bitcoin is a hedge against inflation of currency supply (QE infinity).
Not sure what you thought I meant or was selectively remembering, your statement doesn't contradict mine and is just how I remember it too (US and UK playing up vs Europe and Ukraine playing down). Unless you were claiming the Russian denials didn't happen?
raw "wsl --shutdown" followed by "wsl" takes maybe a second tops
It’s fine Solana guys can always just centrally restart their blockchain
Binance does have significantly lower trading fees than coinbase - so while they do have about 8x the trade volume, it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison, because lower fees mean tighter spreads and more money bouncing around within the system per unit of (deposit -> withdrawal in different currency)

So, I'm not sure "an order of magnitude larger" is necessarily an accurate description. Wouldn't say it's inaccurate either, but just missing some nuance.
I want to be very clear here, because I believe you're saying what you are saying because you have been taught that way, and because the mainstream media and general economic literature seem to hold that view, and so you, in good faith, are merely repeating it.

You are wrong.

The economist that agree with that view are also wrong, or they are biased by conflicts of interest.

The central banks that support and propagate that view, have a significant conflict of interest as well.

I heavily recommend you consider the incentives of the people teaching that view, and that you re-think from the most elementary of economic principles how exactly that would work.

There is no long term benefit to monetary inflation.

I cannot repeat this enough, monetary inflation, just like monetary deflation, is a distortion on the market, and like any other distortions on the market, it has a net negative expected value.

Of course this negative expected value is distributed throughout the entire economy, whereas the benefits are concentrated on one entity, the issuer of the currency, which is the central bank and the state by association.
iMac G4 non-tower form is probably the best looking Mac out of any imho. Peak design.
Fair point. Cypress cannot, the initiator of this comment thread context asked what Selenium can’t do that Playwright can, but my brain misred this as “Cypress”. Sorry about that.
His name was there without permission effectively, due to the lack of contract, so I doubt they'd try to fight that way. They have the big team but the opposition has an open&shut case, not worth the cost and the risk of subsequent action for wrongful use of the name. They might threaten of course, so he'd still need nerves. Again, reasons why I've always stayed away from contracting!
Indeed, after Google, links slowly disappeared and no one could really "surf" the web anymore.
dpi isn't the right metric. you don't keep a phone the same distance as a 49" monitor.
Google didn’t gaslight the web: Web directories died out because they go stale, fast, and require far more human curation than is economically viable. I remember Yahoo effectively deprecating their directory pages long before I heard of Google, back when I was using Dogpile and CompuServe.
You need whichever exchange you entered the position on to exist, and ensure payout when the position is closed/expired. FTX is irrelevant.

If the exchange is doing it's job properly, it would ensure there's a long position for every short position. It's the trader/market maker on the other side that pays you. The premium is what attracts your counter party to the trade.

In the case of FTX, there wasn't a problem with the counter party, it was a problem with the exchange playing with the customer deposits that should have been left untouched.
"I’ve used it in anger and it was honestly pretty great" is one of the best user testimonials I've ever heard.
OSX dose not support running docker containers (or vis versa depending on your point of view). Instead you need a VM running Linux. Docker Desktop / Colima runs this VM for you.
I would read the rest of what I said.

Is NYSE a scam? Is Euronext a scam? The exchange was a legit business that was profitable...outside of fixed costs, it isn't possible to lose money with an exchange. But they were doing other stuff (broking) that did lose them money. These are two completely distinct operations though (in real finance, they are largely distinct).
Here's a 10-Q filing from a miner from yesterday[1]

They mined 1,047 bitcoin from July, Aug, Sept. Their cost of revenue for mining works out to $13.5k per coin. But that doesn't include the cost of the equipment they use (which, by value, is mainly the ASIC miners). If you add in the figure that they provide for equipment depreciation, it's an additional $25k per coin.

(Full disclosure: I'm short this stock)

[1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1167419/0001...
CVE-2022-40303: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/commit/c846986356fc...

CVE-2022-40304: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/commit/1b41ec4e9433...
Google search always gives lousy results, except when you have complained about it, in which case people who check your work always get optimal results. /s
The old saying goes, when you are getting stock tips from your cab driver, get out of the market. Maybe the same should be true for arena's. When your local arena is named after a crypto site, sell your coins.
Sounds like FTX wasn't willing to accept their lowball offer.
I'm curious because a lot of this started (in the short term) with Binance dumping their FTT. Just yesterday it looked like a "4D chess move" because then Binance could acquire FTX for next to nothing. Now I'm curious if Binance just tipped over the gasoline can that can finally set this whole shitshow of uselessness ablaze, but potentially taking down Binance with it.
It's kludge since you are special casing for some files and not for others e.g. rm abc vs rm -- -xyz. If Unix utilities had a different form of specifying args which didn't meddle/overlap with file names this kludge wouldn't have to exist.
On a 24k car they've either gotten the price of the body panels pretty low or this is a loss leader. my hope is the former. If this car can live up to its promise this is exactly what I want as a city dweller that drives 200 miles a week.
On windows, docker desktop can use Hyper-V, but it also supports WSL2 as a backend.
Brave browser uses "attention" as the main factor. It's currently used for their paying the content creators and charging for ads, but with their new search engine [0] it may be a factor there too.

[0] https://search.brave.com/
I think it implies that they intend to take VC money at some point in the future, like a series A, and they’re trying to avoid VC money now while they can get better terms. I don’t know if that necessarily means they plan an exit, or if they’d be happy just being profitable, but I do think it implies they plan to grow significantly.

EDIT: Their website says that they don’t plan to take VC money, so I have no idea what a SAFE means in this case. The point of a SAFE is that the investor is guaranteed the best terms when a priced round of investment happens.
short coinbase
Why should a centralized exchange be cheaper? There is always a middlemen who removes value from the system.

>...then CEX's should win as there is no exchange fee added to each transaction.

The other way around, the DEX should win as there is no fee at all.
If you could make a decentral Ebay there would be no Ebay to take a part of your profit.

The problem with transaction fees in many blochchains is that they actually replaced the middlemen with a decentralized middlemen(s) (the miners/stakes/node operators etc.) Now you have a system operated by people who want high fees and user who want low fees.
They operators cant really collude because they compete but they know low fees would hurt them all so they basically form an oligopoly without even talking with each other.

Ideal the system should be operated by the user so they would all want fees to be low.
I dont know if any such system exists but I know the XRPL solved the problem by burning the fees so node operator have no incentive for high fees. This results in a typical Tx cost of less than $0.0001 USD. Any offer on the DEX is just a special transaction and does not cost anything extra.
The fee is only a negative incentive so people dont spam transaction.

>And same for speed. On a CEX a trade is a database update, on a DEX its a blockchain update. Hard to see how the later can be as fast as the former.

This is true a CEX will definitely be faster with current tech and I dont know if that will ever change but for manual trading this is not really a problem. XRPL DEX executes orders about every 3-4 seconds and the consensus mechanism does not allow front-running.
> He's on another world, imo.

Completely agree. I'm a fan of both, but to me Daft Punk made some very fun dance tunes, whereas Aphex Twin's music is broad, creative, inspiring, emotional.

RDJ made music that made other people want to make music, something about his tunes are simultaneously out there and approachable and genius and make you think "I could to this too"
I very much disagree with your premise

* one does not need $200-300B ARR to run a search engine; and merely making a ton of money does not mean that the way that one has been making that money will continue forever

* using Kagi, one realizes how much the web has been perverted, in my opinion, by the obsession with the ad model; there are many nice, novel things that Kagi could introduce which would reduce ad revenue for a company like Google, but would be useful and novel for Kagi without loss in revenue (on the contrary — could help); ie google is incentivized to keep people on the site through various irritating means; a search engine that isn’t distracting and gives me what I want — I would be more than glad to pay for (and already do pay Kagi $10/month)

Other thoughts:

* Supposing $10/month (honestly I would consider $20) with 100M paying users; that is $1B MRR which is not bad at all and is more than plenty for a meaningfully sized team with meaningful salaries.

* Just like how lowered energy prices during and after the Industrial Revolution made manufacturing at scale feasible, the incredible amount of high quality OSS and infrastructure these days is making it increasingly feasible to do things Google did 20 years ago — something unthinkable for even the best engineers of that era. Not to mention the relative ease of collecting capital with payment services (let alone VCs, etc.) today — even with a looming recession factored in.
> I went to a GTAC (Google testing conference) where a presentation made a very good argument--with numbers and everything--that for smaller projects with simple and more or less static UIs, and where the tests were all fundamentally scripted, there was almost no advantage to coding the tests later. Record-replay was the best way to go.

I agree with you. Most people here discuss recording vs not recording. I think most people really lack a basic understanding of testing. A tool is still a tool.

In my point of view most websites aka apps can be treated like that and maybe should. Usually there needs to be a testing strategy in place. Why and what are you testing? What do you wanna confirm, what kind of bugs are you looking for, what is your testing strategy? How much time and effort go into test?

We found out (finance), that one essential ingredient was missing in our tests: the happy path. Without a single test for the end to end happy path, testing for anything else becomes useless.

And the happy path can and maybe should in most cases be tested using a recorder, because it comes closer to what a real person does.
That's a really bad and useless definition of evil, and we should have figured that out a long time ago. Can't just say "we were following orders," or "that's just business."

And no, I can't give you a clear brightline test right now to determine this. It takes homework.

But.

If you want to A/B test whether people prefer blue chewing-gum to green, be my guest.

If you want to A/B test for literal depression and sell stuff to people based on that, you're probably evil.

The line's somewhere in between there. Now we know where Meta has chosen to go on some of this; and again, this is from WHAT IS KNOWN TO BE PUBLIC.

The safest thing is to assume the worst, then. May they rot.
> The config has now more than doubled in line count, making it impossible to remember the original intent of the configuration.

Not really, I found it quite self-explanatory.
What kind of work loads and traffic have you been running on it so far?

How does it compare to the overhead and experience of DIY postgres?
I think that's personal for everyone. Just know you don't have to find "it." Try out a lot of things and see what works for you.
I am fascinated by the number of layers of abstractions built on top of each other in these financial products... Bankers seem to rival programmers in their ability to stack abstractions on top of each other until it is impossible to understand how the underlying system relates to the top layer.
I don't think having more than one thread is something to ban users for, they may not be aware.
Start one level up: why do you want or need a "purpose"?

Purpose/calling is meaningless IMHO. I opted for "pushing my comfort zone". Something I learned from a woman I was dating when I was 20 (she was 9 years older and entering the Peace Corp). Now rapidly reaching the other side of 50, I seek to be content and without dissonance in my day-to-day life. I have routines I enjoy, no bucket list, and time to let my mind wander to whatever tickles my fancy.

Instead, expand your horizons as much as possible. Read. Study. Try new things. They don't have to be expensive things, this isn't about privilege. Anyone can try drawing, or writing music, or reading philosphy, or long distance running, or volunteering, or sexual experimentation, ... things that push your comfort zone and force you to see the world a new way. If you have the means, travel to foreign countries and get lost, skydive, surf, scuba dive, play in a band, take a dance class, take any class at a college that seems interesting, take a Toastmasters class and give speeches, change jobs.

The more you bend yourself (without breaking) the more you will learn about what gives your life contour.

You might never find purpose, but hopefully you will find peace and delivery from the restlessness you have expressed.
You're Getting Very Unsleepy (1997)
Well, if you borrowed just before it went down…
People like Zeihan have been saying this literally for decades. It's amazing anybody still listens to them.
Simple is always better, especially if you are a small team. For example, there is no reason to scroll jack the site. It makes it extremely difficult to navigate and at least for myself, I immediately close the tab if scroll jacking is in place.

Let your product speak for itself, don't over complicate things or you will lose user confidence.