_urzu

I always cringe when I hear the word "Nazism." Because the first time I heard it, it was when Putin said it in a speech after invading Ukraine. And indeed, if you check Google Trends, you'll see that the term had its peak around that time and has had an increased usage ever since. Nazism is not a word known in German either. We purposefully call it national socialism. And to be honest, I think it makes sense to be national socialism. Because it is nationally socialist. Meaning it is social towards the nation. Which is also a reason why there is the "Internationale." Because to me socialism that is constraint to a nation is inevitably nationalist, I mean how else could it not be?

If you'd understand anything about publishing texts on the internet, you would not make this argument. A text is worth nothing without an optimized CTR preview. You can spend an entire year writing a text and making it beautiful to all the idealism that you're projecting into HN's content moderation. No single person would read it without an enticing title. Get on my level and then tell me again what I'm doing wrong.

Then I would have appreciated if the mods would have given me a choice to edit my title. But they didn't. They made it feeble and ruined my 15 minutes of fame.

In the current discourse there is a debate whether the crowd is mad or wise/smart. E.g., you can see Thiel make the argument that crowds are mad, so I borrowed it from him as it is already an idea in people's heads.

"Mad" is nice, because it's "insane" or "rage," so it's really an accusation (which was my intention). But yes, I agree, it isn't the opposite of "smart."

yeah but re-generating a private key as a secondary owner isn't akin to any ownership concept in the real world and so I doubt that the law already has a playbook on how to handle such a situation.

Re-generating a private key for outputs that have spendable Bitcoins isn't like sending letters to the wrong person.

Does a court even have a mandate over something that it cannot enforce anyways? What's the point of a court deciding something about Bitcoin ownership? I'd just embarass itself, wouldn't it?

I don't know if "code is law" has to be invoked here. Isn't that a HN-specific strawman argument?

Anyways, of course you can take those coins as when you're running Bitcoin you're strictly speaking not signing a TOS and nobody ever owned those coins.

What people keep private are signing keys for a transaction output. But if you found the key independently, they should be yours too.

I completely agree with this post and I also feel burned out by ~~assholes~~ making economical decisions to build software. I've decided to fight it by writing.

My motivation was: Can I flip the engineering mind towards understanding that well-built software can be a reasonable economic bet too?

My article is called "On Technical Yield (and Technical Debt)": [link redacted]

I've also been annoyed about scope creep as it's been my manager colleagues favorite micromanagement argument. Scope creep can be a great thing: [link redacted]

Let's just do things differently.

In 6 years of being in a startup environment, being fast never gave me any advantage.

In fact, being too short sighted and always reaching for the easy wins gave me a lot of fragile products. The value is in well-engineered stuff. But I used to prioritize product over everything. I'm a recovering product-first engineer.

My take now is different: I'm very well aware of product and code quality. But I'm resisting my compulsions to actively control myself. I just do.

I work on whatever problems I feel are important at the day. I usually end up having product cycles and code cycles automatically.

I'm happy with this strategy. A semi-technical boss that constantly whispers micro management commands in my ears is my worst nightmare now. I'm grateful, I don't have one anymore.

Also: Wat, you don't unit test? Well then have fun developing "fast" by having to manually test your app's IO.