dpc_01234

Isn't it always the same story? FBI targets some mentally unstable, near mentally challenged dude, feeds him some propaganda, gives him ideas and encourages him to do some terrorist stuff, then they arrest him claiming huge victory? The guy literally wouldn't be able to do any of that stuff if it wasn't for undercover agents pushing him to do it. "he ordered a plastic explosive composition known as C-4 and other explosives from the undercover employee" etc.

> You don't personally care ...

I'm just stating the fact. If you want to own software, you need to get the source code. If you don't get the source code, you're paying $10-$60 per perishable consumable, and should be always be aware of that, not deluding yourself about some "ownership".

I own my personal computer software, from the Linux OS, through code editor, compilers, etc. I have the source code. I personally care, so I do own, and pay extra (in time and money) for that privilege and look down on people who don't, as I think they are foolish. I do not care about the games, so the license deal is fine with me. I played the game already, if I really want to play it again, I can pay $5 on sale again.

If you and others care about owning games, or any other software for that matter, demand and pay for the source code. Otherwise you own nothing.

If you don't have the source code, you don't really "own" the software anyway. Any closed source software will eventually stop working due to technological changes, etc.

I treat games as mostly consumption items. I play them for a while, and then I might as well throw them to trash if they were physical items. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't accept lack of source code anyway, just like with the OS and important personal computing software.

It's terrorism if "they" are doing it, and not if "we" are doing it. That's actually the real practical definition used by everyone all over the world.

This is just a custom dotfile manager implemented in shell/awk. Nothing inherently "better" about it, AFAICT.

Dragging CD icon from the desktop to a Trash Bin to eject a CD-ROM - that made even more sense and was more intuitive.

"Intuitive" and "easy to use" is 90% familiarity.

Afaik, wild boars are full of parasites so I would not recommend eating them anyway. They also eat about anything, so probably that's why they're a good indicator of background pollution levels.

I disagree with "a well-designed system is one that is easy to change over time".

To me this is the axis of "generic" vs "specialized". As systems get increasingly optimized (for anything: resource usage, bandwidth, latency, cost, etc.) they increasingly need to make choices that limit other potential choices.

This has nothing to do with being badly or well designed. A well designed system is one that does it job well, which in part includes being able to evolve it over time (or not). This might includes staying more generic, or becoming more specialized.

I'm offput by the visual clutter myself. Please share the config to get over it.

I second that "The B-field will always return the correct or Indeterminate value for an inserted key." before listing classes of errors would clarify it by a lot.

Worth it.

With Amber (and anything like it) you need an Amber compiler to be able to work on the script. And half of the reason to use a "script" is the ability to edit them if need arises.

Also since I'm 100% Nix now, I require `nix` installed everywhere anywhere, and if there's `nix`, anything else is available in a reproducible way.

If I need an extra tool that will compile stuff, I might as well use a normal compiled or scripting language. Which I often do.

"Clever code" here means "code-golf-like code".

"Clever" is too subjective to be used like this. One person's clever, is another person's mundane, and it varies across languages, ecosystems, teams.

Also I'd like to point out that in this example, had that function had a comment and a couple of tests, then it wouldn't really matter much what the implementation is. If you don't like it, you can rewrite it your preferred way.

Though as a dev I'd be too lazy to try to optimize code for code-golf-like properties in the first place.

Sturgeon's law squared, maybe cubed if you include recruiters.

Oh. I see it now.

> More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn

But they locked up one dude who did:

> These 11 fictitious accounts alone were used by the criminal organization to wire transfer a total of $3.8 million to Mexico.

Justice was served indeed.

Got half of the time of that developer, while knowingly and directly laundering that money for a cartel? :D

I don't think you understand what it means.

The on chain contract like that can't possibly know which funds are "illicit" or "marked as suspicious". Only users entering the contract can possibly have some logic on the client side to bail out if they notice the would be joining funds with some best effort list of "illicit" addresses, and there's really nothing forcing them to use it.

I bet generally here both the public and judges do not understand the technical details.

This is such an important point.

Benchmarking is hard, and very often is done in ideal conditions, which never materialize in real use cases.

It seems to me that compilers are a perfect place for data oriented architectures/design, but I only know of Zig using it: https://vimeo.com/649009599

This is stale, last commit 5 years ago. Lost of listed crates are still go-to ones, but e.g. for logging nowadays I'd reach for `tracing`.

Not a magic bullet, but there's hell a lot of difference between maintaining C and Rust code.

In Rust it's much easier to create robust and performant abstractions that are near impossible to misuse, eliminating tons of potential bugs right away.

In Rust you don't need 10 years of experience and staring with a microscope and at every line to ensure it doesn't introduce issues. In Rust trivial changes and indeed trivial, so you have more time to think about actually difficult parts.

In Rust contributors don't need to learn custom implementation for collections, string and other basic primitives on every project.

And most of all, people actually want to learn and work with Rust, so your contributor pool is expanding, not shrinking.

All world countries are operating on fiat currencies, that are inflated away at similar rates.

"financialization of housing" is basically the same thing as "FED". Absent value retaining money, flooded with worthless paper, people look for anything scarce they can park their savings in, turning a social necessity (housing) into savings account, and give into incentives to make it artificially scarce (like NIMBY). Historically (before fiat money) housing was a poor investment. https://www.lynalden.com/most-investments-are-bad/

Everything in this book applies not only to management, but also optimizing distributed systems.

E.g.

- optimizing parts of the system for their own metrics often leads to degradation of the whole system performance; any optimization must be done w.r.t. the context of the system as a whole

- focus on optimizing the bottlenecks

- approach to identifying bottleneck

- minimize amount of stuff waiting in the queues

I love this book. It laid out in an approachable way my observations w.r.t how humans fail to organize efficiently by just not being good at thinking in terms of a larger system.

This article repeats the same thing 5 times or so. The headline is almost the whole article.

Can I have that in Rust? :D

5k up or down is nothing in Bitcoin?

It's called progress.

Helix does a lot of things better than other editors, so cherry-picking some minor thing to make it look not worthwhile is just silly.

Maybe I'm wrong, but...

This seems to try to mimic Rust safety rails as impractical annotations. Even if these annotations can express non-trivial cases (which I doubt), they will constrain you for reasons Rust lifetimes can be constraining, you'll have to do tons of extra work, with crappy bare-bone programming language, inside an ecosystem where no one gives a crap and that can't even agree on a common sane tooling.

And then I have no idea from where does it follow that the at thend it will be "Safer than Rust".

How is that better idea than just using a most loved programming language along with a maturing large ecosystem that actually has a culture of building safe and reliable software, using approaches that are not bolted on but built-in?

Oh, that's the one I've switched to last time it was on HN (months ago). AMA ;D

FWIW. My eyes are fine, no idea if it helps with eye strain, I just like how it looks.

As someone living for 10 years now in the US, and before that 3 decades in the UE: it does seem to me that McDonalds in the US (and most of the fast foods for that matter) tastes worse than in Europe or China (where I've also tried). In'n'Out and proper burger-serving restaurants in the US taste fine, but there's just something wrong with McDonalds, KFC and to lesser extent Burger King, that made me stop eating there.

And generally food in the US kind of sucks... :D