failure. noun. with no security team, hackers are able to get in easily.
everyone's DMs leak, all the anonymous accounts have their identity revealed, and all Twitter's clients (advertisers) have their bank account info made public.
214 karma · joined July 20, 2022
everyone's DMs leak, all the anonymous accounts have their identity revealed, and all Twitter's clients (advertisers) have their bank account info made public.
what if the debt is sliced up and repackaged and rated AAA fraudulently?
company minting their own token and then using it as collateral, accounting it as if they had billions. the "stable coins" cannot produce basic accounting audits that a low level book-keeper could do on any normal business.
there has been so much fraud in crypto the past few years. and the algorithm did not help to stop that.
Botswana - 12 Rwanda - 10 Ethiopia - 8.6 Kenya - 7.2 Burkina Faso - 6.9 Benin - 6.5 Zimbabwe - 6.3 South Sudan - 5.3 Uganda - 5.0 South Africa - 4.9
Compare: Japan - 1.6 USA - 5.6 Germany - 2.8 Korea - 4.0 Norway - 3.9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_...
when i grew up it was rare to see a homeless person, now there are tent camps all across the city. and i live in a red state where almost every local and state wide office is run by republicans.
maybe they decided to do the right thing later but it was too little too late.
this is why SciHub exists.... there has never been a netflix or spotify for academic research and probably never will.
also the airplane manufacturers require huge government contracts to even exist, as well as special treatment (like Boeing getting away with killing 300+ people) and periodic bailouts.
milkyeggs dot com is disupting journalism, by permissionless quote tweeting and decentralized fact checking.
and if you join now using my code "FNB" you can get 20 percent off your first milky coin.
they can blur the line between honest mistake, gross negligence, nepotism, corruption, and thievery, enough that people who will applaud beating up a shoplifter for taking 20 dollars of junk will say "oh but they have nice suits and went to Stanford" about someone who gave 75 million dollars for magic beans.
the library industry should have embraced open source in the 90s but they just never "got it". they seem to think they just need to be involved in some hyper expensive vendor projects and somehow that will bring them validation.
i worked in this tiny library with a few ten thousands books and they were paying for system that used oracle as the Database. so basically they were paying for oracle. this was 20 years ago.
then there is JSTOR and the whole Aaron Swartz thing. JSTOR acted really inappropriately
like i feel really bad about what has happened to libraries over the past 20 years, with funding cut to the bone. but they kind of did it to themselves by thinking that "serving the public" means shoveling the publics money to proprietary vendors for no apparent reason. like OCLC has no right to take information generated by public institutions that are almost entirely funded by local taxpayers and somehow claim ownership of that information, and act like a monopolistic for profit corporation.
there are a lot of very innovating library people doing stuff like maker spaces and kids education despite all the hardships but.... this revolution has not made it to the 'library industry'.
IMHO its not actually that hard to figure out what to work on if you talk to enough people. There is often some "L6" (the person six levels down in operations) who already knows what needs to be worked on but nobody has ever asked them ( https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-1-six-levels-d... )
cannot reproduce bug
English = writing. History = writing. Art History = writing. Philosophy = writing. Technical Writing = part of the English department.
You aren't going to learn to write in math class or database class or ML class.
IMHO it boils down to a single issue. Net time saved through automation. Consider an equation, for Task X with Software Y that is built to run on the hottest new machine coming out in the next 18 month cycle.
Told = Time task X will take without software Y
Tnew = Time task X will take with software Y + upgraded CPU
Tgross = gross time saved by installing Software Y + upgraded CPU (this is calculated as Told - Tnew)
Twaste = Time wasted through wonky installation, bugs, maintenance, build system problems, dependency hell of software Y + cpu upgrade
Tnet = Tgross - Twaste --> this is the only reason people use software. Does it, on the whole, save time?
So if a task X used to take 1000 hours, but with software Y on an upgraded CPU it takes 500 hours, but it requires 50 hours of waste, thats 500 gross hours saved, but 450 net hours saved.
https://smoothspan.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/clockspeeds.j...
When CPUs were speeding up by 2x every few years, then this equation was dominated by Tgross. Twaste was very small in comparison so users would tolerate alot of Twaste. Twaste was basically ignored for 20+ years.
Nowdays, CPUs are not speeding up much at all. Tgross is struggling to be anything significant. In fact sometimes, Tgross is -lower- than Twaste. So overall it doesn't even make sense to upgrade the software and CPU. So now the only thing in that equation we can improve upon anymore is Twaste.
That means nowdays, we want software that is easy to install, does not have dependency problems, does not have build problems, does not have memory bugs, or security flaws, and doesnt require tons of maintenance.
Go and Rust both improve on all those aspects versus older languages.
"what about parallelism" -> as you may know, slapping N CPUs on a board does not boost speed by N times. And there is an enormous amount of Twaste in the debugging since complexity of thread interaction has gone up by N something. With single thread CPU, Twaste remains constant. With a N-Cpu system, Twaste goes up in some proportion to N. So to get any savings you still need to attack Twaste, and that is done by intrinsic parallelism features built into the language, which both Rust and Go have to various extents.
caveat i have no idea if this is right i just made it up.
edit - this model also explains the Thin Client theory we are seeing which Comevus described below. Web is basically Thin Client theory finally successful after 40 years of PC domination. Web = lower Twaste - almost no dependency, no installation problems, no maintenance on user side.
this also explains containers. Containers try to attack Twaste for systems built on languages made for a Tgross world, like python and C and javascript.
another edit -> does this mean PC is dead forever? no. i forgot one major component of Twaste, which is dealing with bureaucratic waste of people trying to control what other people are doing on a computer. This form of Twaste dominated a lot of the old pre-PC days of computing, like monopolization, discrimination, racism, sexism, favoritism, nepotism, corruption, and all the other waste that humans insert into a process because , contrary to some popular opinions, a lot of human beings make their living off Twaste, not off Tgross.
So at some point the bureaucratic nonsense makes Twaste so large that even a small Tgross is better. So PC is not dead by this theory. Never fully dead anyways.
The end
chaos did, in fact, ensue. pretty sure it was part of the reason some big clients left.
proof of work blockchain use case:
you want to invent a money transfer system that will attract criminals to use it, and they will think it is anonymous, but its not really anonymous.