When the weakest link between the criminal and the cryptocurrency is a single person (the holder himself in this instance), that person alone would need to withstand all attacks and “rubber hose cryptanalysis”.
Compared to Go where I always have to remember to print the stack trace in every goroutine’s panic handler or use a custom error type that includes the stack trace or I get nothing? And I have to do this very basic thing for every service I spin up? This might not matter for pet projects or CLI applications, but it matters a lot in large scale mission critical servers.
> Much of US banking operates almost entirely on this premise and has done so forever.
I've had the same epiphany when I worked for a fintech startup that interacts with financial institutions. Having a website just isn't necessary for some of the day-to-day operations vs just sending CSV/Excel files back and forth for reconciliation, settlement, accounting purposes.
As many others as mentioned, "tree shaking" is just a rebranded variation of dead code elimination which is a very old idea. I don't think JS does what OP is suggesting anyway, you certainly don't declare the exact dependencies of each function.
And how would you "be more selective" and "keep scammers out" without incurring more costs? At some point, it costs way more to prevent the last 0.1% or 0.001% of fraud than would be saved by preventing said fraud. And the cost might be paid by non-fraud being detected as false positive.
This is a good point. Society as a whole will do fine, technology will keep improving, and the global stock market will keep trending up in the long term. But at the cost of destroying the livelihoods of some individuals of the species through no fault of their own.
Personally I like to think about this in terms of the reward asymmetry. In most situations if you’re cynical or pessimistic and you turn out to be right, you don’t really gain much. If you’re an optimist, and keep betting or grinding sensibly, you’ll eventually be right and there’s much to gain potentially.
I don’t want to use a language with unknown ecosystem. If I need a library to do X, I’m confident I can find it for Go, Java, Python etc. But I don’t know about F#.
I also don’t want to use a language with questionable hireability.
America is a mixed bag to be sure. But to say America is “pure greed” and “evil” is just plain ridiculous. As in, absolutely nothing good came out of America?
If they have actual engineering improvements this sentence in the Wikipedia article could be easily disproved.
> BLP has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories but has never delivered any working product.
I’m not sure about “vast majority”. Barring some exceptions (e.g. lean hogs), many of the commodities futures are physically delivered (e.g. gold, silver, copper, corn, wheat, soybean, natural gas, live cattle). Financial futures like S&P 500, 3-month SOFRs are obvious financially settled as they don’t correspond to anything physical.
Correct. Not saying the OP is, but many people conflate morality and law. They are completely separate, except for a few laws that might be inspired by moral concerns.
> I don't think talking about these things in absolute terms is very useful. Everything depends on the problem and the customer's expectations.
Agreed. In the real world, approximate solutions to hard problems are often good enough.
For instance, the TSP might be a hard problem, but solving it exactly is pointless since the distances between nodes might be subject to measurement uncertainty anyway, and actual travel times might not be fixed as they might fall under a distribution.
Having said that, it’s still worth studying the theoretical aspects of these problems.
The point is basically no one else has politicised this to the extent the US did. Pointing to how different countries solve it differently is missing the point completely.
This is correct. On top of that, the failure modes of AI system are unpredictable and incomprehensible. Present day AI systems can fail on/be fooled by inputs in surprising ways that no humans would.
I don’t think this is as profound as you made out to be. Most complex systems are incomprehensible to the majority of population anyway, so from a practical standpoint AI is no different. There’s also no single theory for how the financial markets work and yet market participants trade and make money nonetheless. And yes, we created the markets.
I second this. The pompous holier-than-thou I-know-better attitude some members of the computer security community has always rubbed me the wrong way. This behaviour of complaining is a manifestation of the typical “putting down” and dismissing someone who isn’t part of the tribe.
Yes, since there’s nothing more powerful than religious belief, how do you teach a population to avoid doing a particular risky thing? By codifying it as an iron-clad zero-tolerance word-of-god holy decree, so much so that adherents aren’t even cognisant of the mechanism at play.