hjorthjort

In fact cats are mentioned in the bible, in the deuterocanonical book of Baruch 6:21 (6:22 in some versions). This was part of the bible up until the reformation and is still part of the bible for catholics and orthodox, but protestants consider it apocryphal.

https://bible.b-useful.com/post?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycomb...

Problem is NIV is not open source, technically I would need a license. There's lots of more modern translations, like the World English Bible.

I think using KJV is good for enhancing the joke though.

Ever seen the classic response "None Of These Words Are In The Bible" to a strange sentence? Now you can check if it's true! Supports most social media and most (English) open source bible versions.

An important and often misunderstood point:

Having >2/3rds of validators (or >50% of power in PoW) let's you rewrite the chain back in history, censor txs, etc. You control what transactions go in blocks, and to a certain extent also recent history.

HOWEVER, this does not give you the power to steal or rewrite state as you please. You cannot convince the rest of the network that you now own someone else's ETH just because you have supermajority validator power. To take away ETH or change the cabin state in any other way, you need to include a valid and correctly signed transaction.

If you include an invalid state change (not caused by a successful and correct transaction) then all other nodes will reject that block, no matter how much validator power or hashing work went into it.

Sounds more like an issue with the team and onboarding than a problem with you, IMHO. I say: cut your losses and swallow your pride, share what you just told us with a senior engineer, and consider yourself "back in training". If you still have a bunch of things to learn that you absolutely need, then you need to learn them. Expecting you to know things you don't know is both pointless and soul crushing.

> The problem is at this point I have been on the team too long to ask any basic questions, one of the senior engineers even pointed out they shouldn't be helping me with certain processes at this point.

This is both mean and unhelpful. And possibly a sign that they don't realize how bad they are at training a junior.

My first thought was "you know who would want this? Insurance companies!" Doctor have a moral incentive -- often a strong one! -- to maximize your health, but they actually don't have the economic incentive to keep you healthy. Their incentives are similar to those of drug companies. But insurance companies want you to need as little care as possible. They are the ones who will sponsor your checkups, may encourage you to exercise, etc. They also tend to have some sway over healthcare providers, or at least an ability to offer helpful information. And they have loads of money. Your operational costs should be peanuts to them. My insurance company (in Europe) offer me a free hotline of 24/7 medical workers for asking minor health questions, because they want to make sure I stay healthy, and the operational cost of that staff is probably way beyond what you need. Abd private insurance companies compete on customer features, so it could actually be a selling point for them to lock up customers, who tend to stick around for a long time.

I realize I'm a total armchair advisor here and what the hell do I know. But reading how this person approached potential customers I kept thinking "oh man I wonder what will happen when he talks to the insurance companies, why would they not be interested?"

The inventor of the logic of questions was named Whately. That tracks.

I don't know at what level this is used, but I have only ever seen it in my graduate level logic and mathematics courses. (I'm European.)

I like it. Part of a good proof is a rigorous derivation. There is plenty of thing sto be said about what intuition can lead us towards such a proof. But at the end of the day, a good proof is ideally almost machine-checkable. Most proofs (much like code) lives two lives: the one in which they are written, and the one in which they are read. It should be almost trivial for a student to go back, on their own, days or weeks later, and see that each step is valid. And I think prose interspersed between column-style proofs do a better job than what margin notes do. The reason two columns work well is that the step and it's justification are of both condensed and almost always of similar length. Justification (much like code comments) may or may not need a good chunk of space. And surely nothing is stopping anyone from inserting little margin notes here and there in a two-colum proof, right?

They're missing the point. The web already allows you to easily spin up a private network where you can set all the rules. Web2 was the cash grab based on the realization that if you can bring all these people under a network you control you can run the web. Web3 is about the meta-features people care about that brought them onto web2 -- shared state, a common truth, enforceable rules -- but putting them at the protocol level, out of the control of a single actor. That takes trade-offs. (If you know how to solve these issues without these trade-offs, let me know and let's build it!) The original web is still there, and it's still useful. So is web2. This is about building an alternative.

Word of advice: don't go looking for your private keys. If someone was malicious they could log all fetched pages and scan those for keys with funds attached. The act of looking up a specific key is revealing information.

I've noticed that there are a few hardcoded ones on the final page, where the account exists and the key is wrong.

I'd say odds are that the website is wrong, but you can always load those keys in a wallet and see if they give you control over the actual address.

If that works, I'd assume it's the case that some people have used weak keys (for example, a popular Ethereum wallet would actually generate 256 bits of entropy but accidentally truncate it to 32 bits in an operation), and any funds in those wallets will have been snagged long ago.

Point being: generate a private key properly, and no one will ever find it.

EDIT: I realize this is another page then the one I've seen previously, but I think the same idea applies. That one had support for Ethereum, too, and on the final page was an account with a balance.

Not really. The point is: there's always someone who has a debt in DAI they need to pay off. If they thought the dip would go even further , they would wait longer, because to them, the DAI does have value: it is what they need to get their hands on to get their collateral back.

That's exactly what unions do. They consider what a reasonable salary for their members are, usually in long and meticulous negotiations with the employers. They are not idiots. They know that if you drive labor prices too high then there are fewer jobs to go around. It's about striking a balance where businesses get to be profitable and expansive, while some of that gets redistributed to workers.

The reason that we don't want the government to set minimum wages and benefits is because that's too crude a tool. The best trade-offs, sacrifices and share of spoils varies, and having the unions of different sectors negotiate with the employers (themselves usually organized in unions) is that you can optimize a lot more so that everyone wins.

Joining the union is voluntary. It's simply a way of coordinating action. And strikes are well within the legal rights of workers -- it's the way the system is designed to work, bit a fluke. This article just points out how a system like that may actually be effective.

I had never heard of this bridge before the attack. The fact that a project manages to attract half a billion in capital unfortunately doesn't say all that much, since so much capital is flowing in so fast to every project with a pulse.

And the bug wasn't really obvious, although the lack of input sanitation is something an auditor (given enough time) would probably point out.

That's what you hire auditors for.

WebAssmebly is not web specific. And it's not assembly.

I think the best way to think of it is that "WebAssembly" is a great marketing name, but what it does is be a modern-day JVM: a byte code language that can run anywhere.

In every single job interview I've had, I've asked some variation of this: "what's it like to work here" or "what's the culture like". Every time I've received honest, thoughtful responses. Every time I took the job or knew someone who did, the answer was verified.

Maybe it's not the most fail-safe way to get a good answer, but the article make it sound like the recruiters/interviewers are adverserial and have rehearsed talking points about shilling culture. If you can't get an honest answer from a recruiter to genuine questions, that's a red flag.

Do you have anywhere you can do interview practice? Somewhere you can get honest feedback? It's possible you are sending of bad vibes. Impossible to say from just reading your post. But if you for some reason can't get a break despite an impressive track record and go-getter attitude, it's worth evaluating whether it's a personality deficit. If the person across the table feels uncomfortable with your, that can be a dealbreaker.

You send your ETH to a specific contract, from which it can't be moved (whether you want to call that "burning" is up to you, but it's probably a bit confusing). Each validator must also run an Eth full node, and uses the state of that contract to determine who can act as a validator on the Beacon chain.

You can't control the network with 1/3 with BFT consensus, you need 2/3rds.

Thanks!

... "Fifteen years after a horrifying experience of abduction and prolonged torture, Lucie embarks on a bloody quest for revenge against her oppressors. Along with her childhood friend, Anna, who also suffered abuse, she quickly descends, without hope, into madness and her own delusions. Anna, left on her own begins to re-experience what Lucie did when she was only twelve years old."

I've written about this: https://www.hjorthjort.xyz/2018/02/21/the-deathbed-fallacy.h...

My main issue with the deathbed advice is exactly what he calls "hindsight bias". The deathbed advice is more of a wish-list -- it's not like they were thinking at the time "I should work harder" or "I don't live as my true self, and that's fine". I try to not work too hard, but I also try to make a good and meaningful career for myself. Do I just work less hard? I try to live as my authentic self, but looking back 5 years I see I was probably not doing, in a bunch of ways that seem obvious now but weren't at the time. I wish I had stayed in touch with some of my friends, but quite a few of them I'm happy I cut ties with.

I take no big offence with the advice in general. I think most people recognize that list as things that are sensible and lead to a higher-quality life. If these advice came from a generic life-coach, we'd shrug and say "good points, seems about right, easier said than done". But somehow, because they are "deathbed regrets" they get a veneer of sage-likeness.

Then again, here we are arguing about articles on Hacker News, so what the hell do we know about happiness?

Because that's how Bitcoin maximalists view Ethereum, and basically all other major alts.

> and one would need more than half of that total stake to have a chance at attacking the network

Actually 1/3rd to disrupt consensus, and 2/3rds + 1 to take control of the chain like you could with a 51% attack on a PoW chain, only you'd get almost immediate and complete control over the consensus.

Peter Thiel, Palmer Luckey, Michael Ovitz support pardon

Here's an adventure: https://strava.app.link/EYaQIX7uDcb

Generally, the best way to find bike routes in Japan (or most countries) is to ask Google for car directions and avoid highways and toll roads. But this time, it drove me straight into the radioactive danger zones of the old Fukushima plant. You were only allowed on those roads if you went by car, as a radiation shield. So I got stuck in a dead end, in a literal ghost town, trying to hitchhike. Man, I still remember the frustration and anger. Weird adventure.

Sure, but all it takes is centralized one on-ramp that will take you, then you can transfer out of it. That's a big difference from having your funds in a particular exchange, where it may be seized.

I agree with the UX problem. I think the decentralized exchanges will manage to scale, research is ongoing. And the UX of decentralized exchanges is not much worse than/different from using Coinbase or Kraken, for example. The big UX challenge is self-custody of keys.

PayPal and similar services already salt their "guaranteed exchange rates" quite a lot, so it will be interesting to see how much they tack on for these very volatile assets.

Also, wen stablecoins?