jVinc

> Confronted by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, former SolarWinds CEO Kevin Thompson said the password issue was "a mistake that an intern made."

Imagine a bank where the CEO says "the problem with all the money going missing was that an intern dropped the keys to the security vault and we had told the guards to never question anyone who had the keys, just let them take whatever they want without question". Seems to me that you can't pin anything on the intern. The problem was the extreme lack of security practices at the company, which ultimately falls on the CEO, who's trying to blame his own incompetence on a intern.

And to me the interesting question here is, if we both buy cheap 10$ tokens, and agree to buy these from each other at 1000$ and "lose our keys" will we be able to collect insurance on the lost asset? Will we be able to deduct the loss in taxes? Or if we donate the "artworks" to each others charities will we be able to deduct them in taxes?

People complaining they they want the game on stadia and blaming the creator are really just being assholes. Imagine if you spent 3 full weeks figthing some extremely obvious extremely silly but on some system, like adding two integers causing a runtime error. Would you really continue to work even harder trying to support that platform?

The guy lost access to his primary email for nearly a month... I think he's exhibiting a metric ton more constraint that is reasonable in this situation and google needs to get their damn shit together.

That sounds a bit like claiming that it's scamy a company founder gets a higher salary than future employees. Of cause the company is allowed to raise money anyway it sees fit, including providing discount for individual investors for any given reason. If you don't like how they are carrying out their business you can just not invest. Which you might be leaning towards, which is why if you where a potential big investor they might offer you a discount to get you onboard as well.

That seemed to have happened even though the code wasn't available. So yes, you are absolutely correct, people will lie, willfully or ignorantly.

> So, Robinhood legally could not submit trades on $GME until they could muster the deposits for GME that they needed

This seems ad odds with what the Robinhood CEO said in interviews which was that Robinhood did not have any legal obstacles but acted preemptively to avoid future issues. I think the distinction is important, as both lawsuits and potential investigations into market manipulation and fraud will hinge on this point. Especially since it seems certain hedge funds "in the know" seemed to reload shorts before the action that was taken, so while Robinhood might have queued up for this action expecting the they might run into legal requirements, they however decided to instead pull the trigger themselve, potentially because acting in good faith they would not run into a legal requirement, which would have left people holding a huge bag on top of their existing losses, potentially bankrupting a couple of major players and likely killing robinhood as well.

Front running is simplistically placing your own orders in front of your customers orders based on the knowledge that the customers orders will be executed.

Buying at better than requested rates and reselling to a customer based on a request from that customer to buy at a specific point is not front-running the customers order, it's literally just carrying out the customers order, but pocketing the difference between what you can find buy the asset at and what the customer decided to pay.

Think of this, you pay someone a fixed amount to buy you a PS5. When he gets to the shop there is a sale, so he pays less than he expected and less than you expected, but he's fulfilling your order at the agreed price so he pockets the difference. That's not front-running. He is making money fulfilling your order, but it's not front-running.

Now second scenario imagine you again pay a fixed amount for him to get you a PS5. He comes back saying "sorry, but they didn't have any left ... but I just happen to have bought 4 myself before I could fulfill your order, I'm willing to sell you one at an elevated price". That's front-running. He executed his own order, in front of the one he was carrying out for you, with the knowledge that he would be able to make money because of your order.

Note that the illegal part is not "making money by buying and selling something". It's perfectly legal for someone to buy the last PS5 and resell it at a higher price to make money. The illegal part carrying out such an order based on the inside knowledge of your pending order and front-running your order with their own.

Naturally this is rather fuzzy explanation, take it with a grain of salt.

I know a guy, he hated networking, so he decided to set up a kubernetes cluster on his home server to abstract all his networking difficulties away. Now he occasionally complains that the network inside the network inside the network is annoying because it doesn't play nicely with the network outside the network on top of the main network. Overall I feel the rate at which he talks about networking issues has increased, but his enthusiasm for talking about them has gone up, so I guess that's a win.

I imagine that if Atlassian could get permission from its many JIRA customers, then doing a text-based ml-categorization of issue descriptions alongside completion times would be extremely interesting.

I'd wager that data is just as poor overall, but the sheer volume of data available might be able to help get some sort of consistent conclusions from them.

Giving the reporter the benefit of the doubt, the person might actually have been completely oblivious to current events, and taken offense to what seemed like someone calling all republicans nazis. It really speaks to the absurdity of the resent events that this is where we are, that absolutely correct warnings that litteral nazi's are assaulting the Capital are discarded because reality cannot be distinguished from hyperbole.

That said, I for the life of me cannot understand how any HR employee would look at that conversation and decide to reprimand, let alone fire someone for issuing a warning that could quickly be backed up by checking the news. I would not be surprised if both the reporter and now fired head of HR where republicans and Trump supporters, who have a cognitive dissonance around what transpired on the 6th.

True, but the only lines that seem to be redacted are those on page 91 under "Massage , Florida (a)". I would expect this document could have been more heavily redacted, though its curious that a hand full of lines remain redacted.

Lets pretend Tether has no backing what so ever. They could still defend the peg 1:1 completely. How? Well if someone wants to sell a bunch of tether, they simply print even more tether, use that to buy crypto on exchanges, and sell that crypto to anyone willing to buy it that generates dollars to pay of the person selling their tether. But that also leves them with the tether that was sold back to dollars, which they can then buy more crypto with an either just hold or also sell to generate dollars. The visuals of this from an outside ends up looking effectively like there was just ton more new money coming into the system when in fact the exchanges and new money took a hit, and the money printing people just raised their perceived holding without backing. That is to say, that in this case the event of someone wanting out looks like the market is rising. You can keep this going as long as your un-backed coin can be exchanged for other liquid crypto.

As long as they have a blindly trusted money money printing machine, they can use it to defend the illusion that it's printing real money. This is thes standard playbook for a pyramid scheme. You use new money to keep the illusion of a big holding and you can keep that going as long as the illusion holds.

Well ofcause you can. A pyramid scheme keeps paying out profits to the chumps right up to the point when it doesn't.

The argument here isn't that Tether has no cash on hand, it's that if enough people pull out, they hit the the bottom of the non 1:1 reserve and everyone else left holding will zero out. If you have 1 kg of gold and start selling papers giving people claim to that 1kg of gold, nothing will prevent you from seeling 1000 claims, making it seem like you're holding a ton of gold for people when looking at the market cap, but if 2 people come and ask you for their 1kg of gold and you don't have enough of the cash you got seeling claims on hand and an oppotunity to buy gold quickly, then from one day to the next 999 claims are worthless.

This is of cause not a big risk in the industry normally because markets are regulated and those who hold gold or other assets backing claims go through audits.

Naturally Tether can't go through an honest audit because even though they might be holding enough cash to cover a decent amount of the market, it would expose them for lying over time, which would still hurt their business tremendously.

I didn't see the latest one, but the one before that was a video of Trump telling supports to go home, but then also continuing the allegations that the election was stolen. It initially appeared with a fact-checker disclaimer* that the allegations where wrong. I guess they weighted hims saying "go home" against the continued factually incorrect claims, which are now throwing fire on the flame, even if he's saying go home.

* Disclaimer was: "This claim of election fraud is disputed, and this Tweet can't be replied to, Retweeted, or liked due to a risk of violence"

Our solution to this is just to publish notebooks to an internal gitlab repo. Easy to share read-only versions, it renders a bit different but looks close enough. You can then easily manage user access rights in gitlab and contributing back changes is easy with the jupyterlab git integration.

For publishing interactive examples we use voila, which creates a dashboard version of the notebook for users.

Jupyterlab has an extention that does this automatically on save, jupytext, also keeps both files in sync over time.

There definitely is violent scenes and sounds in the game. I would not recommend playing it with young children for instance. However I would myself not put in the same box as other games in the "intense violence" category.

Mostly because and this may sound silly, but it's not "violence in motion". You are viewing a murder scene, and someone died, and you might hear someone take the last breaths of their life. Which has a very high emotional impact which should not be ignored. But that to me is still fundamentally different from gory/bloody games with often fast visceral violence. As mentioned by others, the scenes themselves are calmed a lot by the dithering art-style.

I would say about the emotional content though that this hits differently from other stories where characters die because of the narrative tool. You never have a Game of Thrones moment where a character you are heavily invested in suddenly dies, because even though you learn about the passengers and feel for them in their misery, you also realize up front even before you learn about them that they have died and you are just looking at memories before that event.

I am in the same boat as the author of having only recently played Return of the Obra Dinn between Christmas and new years. I cannot recommend it enough, if you haven't played it and like puzzlers you should pick it up.

It's an extremely engaging story, and a narrative tool I have not previously encountered. No spoilers as this is revealed immediately, but essentially you are navigating past events through frozen timepoints at the moments when people died, and have to determine the identities and fates of all the about 60 crew aboard the boat, which requires a bit of puzzling things together across the different events that lead to peoples deaths.

I doubt we'll see a similar follow up game from Lucas Pope, as he has commented this game grew much larger than he expected and he would scale back for his next projects. Also from papers-please to Obra Dinn he seems to be one to break the mold at each iteration, but I really wish there where more games like this, with different stories to investigated.

> Any sensible time handling solution will truncate instead of rounding.

It's not a "handling of time" its just a display. And its extremely sensible to round to the nearest displayable number instead of rounding up or down, because this minimizes the error in the displayed number. And that's what you are interested in, conveying as accurately as possible what the current time is.

Seems like a bit of a reverse Occam's razor to explain that when the timer is at 0.501 it shows 1 and when its 0.499 it shows 0, is due to a fake secondary timer running with a 500ms offset that is rounded down, instead of just saying "the display is rounded to the nearest whole number".

I honestly can't say. It's quite easy to use and broadly supported. Even excel can directly pull data from oData Sources with a couple of clicks. If anyone else has some insights into the lack of uptake of oData I would love to hear them though.

When the financing for much of this was agreed upon it was under the previous danish prime minister Lars Løkke, who's wife is Faroese. The second he stopped they founded a company there which has close ties to some travel company among other things. Besides this the family has general connections to the economy there naturally.

Also just sounds silly. I haven't read through the papers, but I highly doubt anyone studied how chili consumption affected the change of dying in car accidents.

Indeed. I am absolutely sure their design process went: Mix a bunch of different stuff, teste it. Feed results of teste evaluation into computer, train ML model to accurately pick out the mixture which was rated highest in evaluation for that sweet sweet ml pr-boost effect.

If that's not the case then I am extremely curious for them to release an actual tech run through of how ML contributed to their process.

The "Open" in OpenAI means that they want their customer to open their pockets, it has nothing to do with Open Source, open core or anything like that.

The cultural war of "but they deserve to make money" is misguided. You are free to make money, just don't call your projects open source if for one reason or another you do not want to open up the source of your project. And don't call it open core if you don't want to open up the core of your project. GPT-3 might just be "GPT-2 plus something more", but a proprietary code based forked off of Linux would also just be "Linux plus something more", that doesn't make it open source or open core, because neither the core nor the source is open.

That said, I am not against the OpenAI project going forwards with early releases of proprietary offerings, it seems like a fine way to finance their work, and they can still support the open source community. But criticism of the choice is warranted if they keep trying to brand themselves as open.

Considering everything Wolfram has accomplished with wolfram research it's incredible that anyone would think Feynman was right in his advice. Wolfram succeed not only in creating the perfect environment for his personal research endeavors that he intended, he also built a company worth billions and is able to employ hundreds of talented software developers, and researchers from across different fields to support his company.

I think Feynman underestimated just how brutally effective Wolfram could be when he set his mind and time to it.

Now the flip side of this is that many would argue that he didn't manage to turn all of this money and research effort into the major breakthrough that he was looking for, but really I think any researchers would take his "failure" over a single professorship dedicated to your own pursuits at a dark corner of a university.

Found the bug in your process in line 1. Managers shouldn't be attending your daily stand-up.

> It is unreasonable to expect people to have perfect foresight that what you’re working on is going to be relevant to them 2 weeks down the line.

I would understand if you said 2 years or 2 months. But if your road-maps and plans change so rapidly that you can't even assume that features coordinated one day will still be relevant 2 weeks after... then how on earth do you have a functioning team without daily communication? And if you do have daily communication, why not concentrate that to a single max 15 min period to reduce being interrupted in flow?

I know this isn't your place to fix, but honestly align with your scrum master and just stage a walk-out of the "parking-lot" meeting for you and the team. You should not be required to attend this.

After doing this a couple of times people will realize that there is something wrong if you have to spend 45 minutes a day digging deeper into issues. Poorly planned spring backlog? A non-existing product backlog? There could be many issues, but trying to "patch" them by doing things wrong.

> Also I take any opportunity to vent about these stupid "agile" methods, sorry.

So I'm sure you've raised these concerns at the end of every iteration at the retrospective right? Please tell me that you didn't throw out the retrospective and the process for venting frustrations to facilitate change and then start changing the process completely and then end up being bad at this thing you are doing which definitely wouldn't be scrum then.

How would the standups be for managers? They don't attend. Even the scrum master is not required to attend, only required to ensure the meeting happens (which for most teams often means the scrum master has to attend, but still.)