also not necessarily the first one either
592 karma · joined January 31, 2011
also not necessarily the first one either
e.g. the EtherFreakers contract is immutable and contains a git commit hash (line 83: https://etherscan.io/address/0x3a275655586a049fe860be867d10c...), so you can prove you have the code which generates your freaker.
Compound is an interest rate protocol on the Ethereum blockchain, that lets developers create new financial applications that are global, safe, and open. The Compound protocol is one of the largest DeFi protocols on earth, with over $15 billion earning interest, and moving billions of dollars of assets every day.
At Compound Labs we develop the protocol and new tools, alongside a community of users and COMP token-holders. Learn more about our upcoming Gateway blockchain, built in Rust: https://compound.cash/
We're always looking for world-class engineers, currently we have the following positions listed:
* Senior Engineer: https://jobs.lever.co/compound-2/c23b741c-2f62-48f4-b81f-d40...
* Rust Engineer: https://jobs.lever.co/compound-2/436bfc13-2063-436a-85f6-c69...
We work in Rust, Solidity, Elixir, Elm, and whatever other programming languages and tools suit our needs (such as formal verification). We're always learning and optimizing what we build in the name of correctness.
At Compound, you will build high-caliber technology to propel the future of decentralized finance.
I sympathize with the author. The problem is trying to tame the web, as opposed to embracing it for what it is.
It more or less was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#History
Your explanation is no "simpler", you're just completely disregarding the facts. People didn't just play along, she got a lot of pushback, especially for someone in such a senior position.
In 2011, she was offered a FOIAble BlackBerry. Her team said it didn't make sense. The simple explanation is that she didn't want a FOIAble BB.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/295909737/Stephen-Mull-Emails-to-...
The administration didn't accept it - a lot of people questioned it and they were told never to speak of it again (read the IG report).
I'm inclined to believe accounts like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9149363
Perhaps she wasn't furtively planning to take over the world, but the evidence points to more than her just wanting to use a Blackberry - it really seems (to me) like she took significant measures to avoid keeping records.
Its about efficiency. TrailDB compresses the hell out of event streams grouped by some key (typically user). I think it's generally something like 100x - it does so by making certain assumptions about your data. Similarly, when operating on your event sequences, many of those operations can be performed as integer instructions on the compressed data.
TrailDB gives you order(s) of magnitude of leverage. That's the difference between doing analytics on a single machine and a cluster in many cases. There aren't too many other databases that were designed to gracefully handle tens of trillions of events, so its really not surprising that you need a different tool for that job.
It seems to me, no matter what the reason, this is the justification they would give, because its the only reasonable one. But the Privacy Act exists for a reason, so I wonder what prompted them to decide it was worth making this proposal, and the discussion that actually ensued with the lawyers, etc. before making it. In particular, did they weigh the costs/benefits of what they are asking for, or are they just pushing for whatever privileges they can get?
[1] https://medium.com/@RonWyden/shaking-my-head-5c1b60db9086#.h...
These tactics have become so predictable, do the people proposing these things even realize how this comes across? I really wonder what the discussions inside the FBI that lead up to these "proposals" sound like.
Assuming that you are redistributing wealth (as you describe above), taxing wealth instead of income has a profound effect. It creates an incentive for every individual to increase the total wealth in the system, no matter who creates it, or where it's created. When you tax income, it makes no difference to you whether the income was created wealth, or merely captured.
Given that we see this type of behavior in all industries (not just tech), it seems to me it's actually a systemic problem. People / organizations are incentivized universally to optimize for their own selfish interest, because they do not incur the cost of their decisions on everyone else. In this case, designing your product to maximize e.g. addictiveness or time spent per user makes sense if the downside of that is paid by the user.
I think taxing wealth / property instead of (primarily) income actually solves this problem, but that's another story...
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2016/05/11/...