ganafagol

The problem is that large codebases tend to have a huge footprint if you need to clone the whole repo. Git as-is does not allow you to only pull a subset, i.e. specific paths representing a sub project. That's what josh is trying to solve: a "virtual" repo that behaves like a real git repo but behind the scenes seemlessly integrates with the big monorepo.

> "Logic" refers to the most basic set of logical operations (AND, OR, etc.) and their use.

That's not what mathematicians mean with "logic". It's a much broader field than just boolean operators. Those are what computer architects and perhaps electrical engineers mean with "logic".

I'm suggesting that monitoring an application for malicious behavior to detect it after the fact is the wrong approach. Once the data is sent, it's too late to do anything about it.

Oh you first try fake data? That's easy to counter. For example probabilisticly: the app tosses a coin and only sends the data with 50% chance the first time. Now half of people using your approach will think the app is safe and get their data stolen anyway. Or use some side channel, delay activity, ...

And once you see them, you do what? Rollback reality?

That the input is matched position by position to alternative patterns and the first one is returned is another one of said assumptions.

Needless to say, all of this only works if the regex engine satisfies certain assumptions, i.e., order of "evaluation" is guaranteed.

In abstract semantics of regular expressions, a|b and b|a are equivalent.

Not sure about the loner generally having an edge over college here. I had to communicate, collaborate and team work plenty back in the college days.

You are saying that all Walmarts and McDs in the Bay Area are staffed with people who have a 3 hour commute?

Nit: it's "bellwether". Nothing to do with the weather.

One needs to keep that approach in mind when judging people who are within a system that one as an outsider critizises. There may be people in there who try to change it for the better.

A historical example is the French Revolution. Many people who tried to reform from within still got their heads chopped off. In fact, everybody but the most radical did, and even those ended up paranoid about one another.

Other examples are former socialist eastern countries. Just because somebody was state employed with decision making authority does not mean they were pro-dictatorship. Many realized that to improve things they'd need to work within the system instead of openly opposing and ending up in jail.

Complaining at a high level. People with 3 kids make do with jobs at Walmart and McD.

"Pay is good enough" yeah sure.

While that's true, most of the valuable employees have 1 top skill: communication. That's neither trained nor witnessed by having gone through 2 years of I-did-this-alone-at-home.

With less than 5 years of experience it's definitely a factor. If your straight Cs and B- and only have 3 years in some junior role, you're really not prio 1 interview material.

You didn't answer the question though.

Sounds like the answer is "yes, we maxed the total market cap" which is distinctly different from "we ended up with almost all the money". You didn't have the money, you only had a fake stock valuation bubble.

> The professor thought we must have hacked the computer, but we played by the rules."

Sounds like a terrible prof then. What is such a simulation supposed to teach if not that those kinds of attacks are possible? These are inherent in the construction of the system and your prof should have just given you cudos for having understood that.

World hunger is caused by power imbalances. That's a social/political problem. Whatever technical solution you provide helps worsening the root cause and at best keeps the status quo.

We have observed dramatic technical advances in all fields related to food production in the last 3 decades. We've seen at best marginal improvements in world hunger in the same time, and even that only if you're beeing optimistic with your statistics.

Is it? In my dayjob I'm solving technical problems with technical means.

World hunger is not a technical problem. You won't solve it with technical means. If you think you can, you have already lost the fight.

Climate change is not a technical problem. You won't solve it with technical means. If you think you can, you have already lost the fight.

And so on, and so forth. Technical means can help solving certain components needed for the overall solution. These are then technical (sub)problems though. For example, how to store more energy in a battery, or how to grow certain crops with less water. But the overall problems are social in nature. People need to understand that world hunger is a distribution problem. That one is easier to solve with certain (technical) tools available, but that won't be enough. People need to understand that we can't use more natural resources than get replenished. Not a technical problem. If only the tools get better, people will find new ways to be wasteful. Etc etc.

This is clearly trying to solve a non-technical problem with technical means. The root problem is that AWS cancels you with too high bounce rate. The obvious solution is to talk to some AWS representative to at least temporarily not cancel you after explaining the situation. If AWS does not let you talk to them, then that's where the problem lies, not in some not cleaned up email list.

It's terrible to spend a lot of effort on this kind of tech just because some business partner has shitty customer support.

> More information can never be harmful.

That statement alone shows blatant ignorance of basic properties of the human psyche which makes reading the rest of your long reply rather pointless, as thought-through as it might have been from your perspective.

Humans are not the perfectly rational machines you seem to make them out to be. You need to deal with people in the real world, not some dream utopia that does not exist.

What about people who can't prove a positive but truly are guilty?

In this fuzzy form of what "positive" and "negative" are, there is a symmetry that allows all arguments you have for one "side" to be easily flipped. Each positive is somebody elses negative. Not guilty? Not innocent? With that line of reasong you could not ever prove anything since it's "the negative" of something else.

Mathematical logic has a solution to this though. You may want to check out constructive logic. That's where the statement "you can't prove a negative" is reasonable but has very specific meaning.

Then you didn't read well. User tovej presented pretty good arguments about intrinsic vs extrinsic motivators, including a bunch of cited studies.

Your argument that Amazon does great does not provide evidence. Maybe they's do even better without this crap, or maybe the employees would be happier.

Is there any answer possible short of "it's god" that would satisfy you?

I'm asking because you are giving the impression that whatever answer you get, you will reply to with "but why?" and "that's just passing the buck down".

A fundamental thing about science is that we'll likely never have all the answers. You can always ask "but why?". That's not gatekeeping but the difference to religions which often times claims to have the final answer. (Ironically there is a lot of gatekeeping in religion since not everybody is permitted to interpret scripture as they wish.)

And you are ignoring my point. :) These questions already have (partial) answers and are otherwise being worked on. If you are really interested in answers, go ask a physicist and not some random dude on the internet whom you happen to disagree with. It's not me who is working on them, it's exactly those physicists that you are accusing of ignorance. (The irony in that is quite amusing.)

Clearly you are not a physicist. Just because you don't personally know sth does not mean it's not there or being worked on.

The theory of relativity has quite clear thoughts about why there is a "speed limit". Entire branches of physics ponder about why and when electrons and other particles came about.

The shrugging "Don't know, we just noticed it." that you ascribe to scientists' reactions does not match reality.

And a from-0-to-100 gain in privacy.

Calling this a "regression" is nonsense.

These are all the same paradigm, in priciple. 2 is a special case of 3 and 1 is a special case of 2. All circuits differing in how powerful the processing nodes are.

Then your input is signed. And now what? How does this authenticate the output?

Same goes for all makers of those "independent games". If just one of those goes rogue, th system is void. You need trust in all of them, not just those that you are playing.

Worse, if your game currency is a decentraliced ledger, then it's much harder to do something about the rogue participant. That's by design. If it's instead a central entity, they can kick out that party on a whim.

There is still no value over a trusted third party, keeping all this in a central database. These games you are talking about just agree on this third party and that's it.

And they already do that. The third party is states backing traditional banking systems.

Oil is free? Not sure where the Saudis got there riches from then.

Otoh sitting in the sun for a few hours to charge some battery via rays from the sun is itself free.