I did read it and it is honestly not that complicated. The SEC is being generous here. They could make the argument even if there were no validators. But I hope this is the start of them shutting down the validators too.
44 karma · joined September 18, 2022
But anyway, it's still entirely wrong because they can still just catch you using traditional means. Like catching you on tape admitting you stole the Bitcoins, or getting a video of you doing it, or getting credible witnesses to say that you did it. Or similarly, to retrieve the stolen coins just get a video of your keyboard while you type the pass phrase to the wallet, or just liquidate the rest of your assets into dollars and pay back the victim that way... Like the whole thing just makes no sense. Even if it did actually work it would still be terrible because the system you describe means that if you get your bitcoins stolen and you catch the thief and he admits he did it and then intentionally goes to jail to avoid having to give the tokens back so they just sit there unused in the wallet just to spite you... you can literally never get them back. Why would anyone actually want that??? I am honestly trying not to make this so outlandish but this is entirely what you just described. It's completely ridiculous.
The only thing this accomplishes is if you are trying to destroy money and make someone suffer by taking destructive actions... but like, if you are really an evil and petty criminal person you can also just do that with anything else? Like, rob them at gunpoint and set their cash on fire? Or slash their car tires? No one needs Bitcoins just to be an asshole, you can see that every day on this planet...
I hate to push back on you (of all people) for this, but no it's actually not. You are talking too much with your hacker hat on and not enough with your legal hat on. There is quite a difference between accredited security firms doing responsible security research, and random unaffiliated parties with shifting and conflicting motivations doing "security research". That angle is a losing angle and it's not because these companies did anything, it's because it is actually a fallacious and bad meme that has propagated around forever in hacker circles, seemingly for no other reason than that it is fun to think about it.
In my opinion, if you follow that "right" to its legal and technical conclusion, you will end up with the "right" of corporate security firms to do research. That's it. I don't mean to be all doom and gloom though. You are right that the idea of "right to repair" is a much broader thing that makes a much more compelling case for any kind of consumer protection angle.
>I've got macros to do automatic bounds checking. I've got RAII and stack traces. I've got structured concurrency, which will give the same capabilities as the Rust borrow checker if you adjust your coding style. And all this in portable C11.
You can do this all in C but it is an absolute nightmare. Every large C program grows some strange bespoke and incompatible versions of all that stuff at some point. And they're all a pain to use because none of it is idiomatic to the language. It's seriously awful. Things like the Linux kernel are the worst offenders. I will be happy when the C language finally reaches the end of its miserable, slow, agonizing death.
If crypto-land really wants to follow through on their lawless anarchist fantasies, then they should be even happier if the SEC bans all of it outright. Then they can all go back to their roots when the only thing bitcoin was used for was illegal black market drug transactions...
Really disappointing to see this very lazy and trite criticism upvoted. If you look in KDE Plasma or Sway, you can also find plenty of missing features and bugs. You can find those anywhere.
Compare to a protocol like RDP which is extremely optimized for efficient and secure network operation, but is also way more complicated as a result, and it would be foolish to use it on a local display server.
I mean, I think it would be cool if my PC never crashed. Isn't it easy and fun to say things like that?
Your own experiences with it aren't a lie, but they're probably based around ignoring the last 20-30 years of advancements, and ignoring many actual statements from the X11 developers saying that it's bad for remoting.
>Wayland gives up some things
Well in the case of X11 fowarding, no it doesn't. That still works.
>Also, those of us who use non-mainstream window managers (such as Window Maker) are not interested in hearing that we should switch to some UI which doesn't support our workflow just because it's more fashionable these days.
By insisting on using these obscure, non-mainstream and under-maintained environments you are setting yourself up for an extraordinary amount of pain for very little benefit. The more time you spend avoiding the issue the harder it gets to figure out how to adapt your workflow to something else. I'm sure you understand that more deeply than anyone else here. So why keep up with the charade? It is not doing you any favors. At some point we have to let bad habits die.
There can still be implicit bias. Please read this publication from MIT on this exact subject: https://tll.mit.edu/teaching-resources/inclusive-classroom/i...
>An African American student in the 4th decile (as in, is scoring above 40% of students and below 60% of students) has the same chances at admission at an Asian student in the top decile.
Ok, but that still doesn't change the facts. The issue is not that there aren't enough qualified students or that unqualified students are being placed above qualified ones or that merit is being ignored. That just isn't what's happening at all. That graph is missing a lot of important context, like the actual court case it was talking about that is currently headed for the Supreme Court:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...
The whole thing about "we need more merit" is a misdirection. It's a bad, irrelevant take. This professor should be ashamed to have put his name on such dreck.
>If I have 500 qualified white applicants and 5,000 qualified Asian applicants and I admit 100 whites and 100 Asians have I not discriminated against Asians?
It very well might be so, but now you're coming back around to the same thing about implicit bias again, the very thing that the original article was dismissing as not an issue. The plaintiff even argued in court that Harvard was doing this...
But this still makes no sense. You can just develop another thing that converts from the systemd format to something else, or make the other daemon capable of loading the systemd format directly. It isn't even hard to do this, I've seen various things do it. And depending on where you are the systemd formats are arguably more standardized than old crons and sysloggers in the current year.
libsystemd includes a d-bus library for exactly this reason.
And that sounds like something is seriously wrong with your machine or your drivers. GPU rendering has massively improved performance and battery life on every machine I've ever tried. And especially on embedded devices with a low power mobile GPU, see for example here: https://social.librem.one/@dos/104984930233748319
Compositing should do so as well by avoiding unnecessary redraws. That sequencer would probably benefit greatly on a Raspberry by using GPU rendering, the screenshot even shows it rendering video and shaders...
And developing a new compositor also does not require wlroots. Originally there was libweston, wlroots is just another option.
No, you are completely and utterly wrong on that. This is more of the same intellectually lazy assumptions, please stop this.
And I get his point perfectly, it is still insulting and dismissive. When someone starts talking about school vouchers and "merit" in the context of this then it's mostly an admission that they don't know what they're talking about. It has absolutely nothing to do with the problems faced by a school like MIT that already has an extremely low acceptance rate anyway. They know how to test students on academic rigor, that isn't the issue. The fact is, they already cannot accepts all students who pass based on academic merit alone. Your chart even demonstrates that is the case with Harvard, the issue is explicitly not that racial makeup is being considered over academic achievement.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing on how the decision is made, but the piece itself is poorly written, intentionally inflammatory, and insulting. There are maybe two valid suggestions buried within a bunch of nonsense, which shouldn't be the case for such a short article. It always disturbs me how anyone is willing to publish these terrible, low quality op-eds. And then when people get angry at them for their writings being low-quality, insulting and inflammatory, they have the nerve to complain that people don't want to hear the rest of their opinions... Instead of, you know, addressing the issue that caused the anger and changing the bad opinions accordingly.
His piece (you can read it here: https://www.newsweek.com/diversity-problem-campus-opinion-16...) is more of the same intellectually dismissive rhetoric that we've seen a thousand times before. As usual it's got all the same nonsensical discriminatory suggestions that don't actually help people, like "support charter schools" and "we should use a process based on merit and qualifications alone" and "we should build a system that uses merit and qualifications alone but is also unbiased". And just for fun he suggests at the end that any university even considering how to approach race issues is somehow comparable to nazism. This is just bad writing, I don't blame the students for being upset. Have you noticed how very few students who are actually underprivileged would ever share these views?
It is also not trivial to reduce the amount of roundtrips in an X11 program. If the program uses Xlib then it probably needs to have significant portions of it rewritten to use xcb, which is a lot more complicated than it seems because Xlib handles a lot of caching and logic that xcb simply does not. In some situations X11 roundtrips are simply unavoidable. Complaining about GTK or Qt will not change this. Even if it were possible to fix those, there are less and less contributors to those projects who are willing to spend time to maintain X11 support.
It sounds like the vast majority of apps you use are very old. Even plain productivity apps benefit from GPU rendering. If they don't it's because those apps are far behind, compare to things like Electron apps where everything has been GPU accelerated for quite some time because of Skia.
I doubt it will ever be fixed, because it offers no benefits when the application itself uses actual hardware rendering with GL or Vulkan. XCB can't speed that up at all.
No idea where you heard that information but it is extremely incorrect. See here:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/GNOME-Mutter-Mainline-EGLStrea...