This seems to me like an example of how difficult it is to organize a company around a goal other then making money. As a non-profit, OpanAI was not supposed to be a profit maximizing enterprise. But how is a board supposed to opperate, and set objectives without a clear goal like profit maximization? Usually a boards represents the owners of the business and their interested. The OpenAI board does not represent the owners because there are no owners. So the board is just 6 people and their opionions. Hard to see how that can work.
Another sign that the gold rush phase of the web is over. It is no longer enough for companies to just increase their active user base and be rewarded with a rising share price. Google gets paid for showing users adds, so if users aren’t looking at the adds, there is no reason to incur the cost of showing them content, and if they stop using the service, so be it.
It’s been 25 years, but it’s nice to see that fundamental economic principles still hold even on the internet. I expect that we will be seeing much more of this in the near future.
To avoid deadlock, you need to ensure that locking happens in the same order in all concurrent transactions. So account A must be locked before account B and never in the opposite order. So if account B is the account being debited and therefore the account that needs to have a sufficient balance, then account A must be locked first. If account A is the account to be debited, then explicitly locking account B is not necessary. It will be locked when its updated.
I would not call it a problem with capitalism, I would call it capitalism's greatests feature. A free enterprise system ensures that resources are used to create the greatest value for consumers. If firms did not need to seek a profit, why would you expect to get anything from them that you value.
Customer friction at checkout. The more difficult a merchant makes the checkout process the more likely customers are to abandon the checkout. Some of those abandoned checkouts are fraudsters, but other are legitimate customers who don't want to deal with the hassle. It is up to the merchant to decide how to weigh fraud against lost sales.
I would put WEI together with a together with a number of other recent changes that I think signal that the land grab error of the web is over, and that web based businesses need to get real about their economics.
1) Netflix restricting password sharing
2) RedHat pushing the limits of the GPL to restrict RHEL re-distribution
In some ways, I think this could be a good thing, in that it clearly separates the advertising funded web (the commerical web) from the altruistically funded web (the free web). Maybe with a little luck, the free web becomes something more akin to the web circa 2000 even it has alot less information. That might be better than the open sewer of a web that we have today.
What I have heard is that the banks that own Zelle will try to convert it into a directory service mapping identifiers like email addresses and mobile numbers to bank account information. The actual payment clearing will move off of Zelle, and all payment clearing and settlement will happen on FedNow or The Clearing House’s RTP system. That makes some sense to me.
There are already other options for instant payments in the US. The Zelle network and The Clearings House's RTP have been running for several years, and provide pretty good account reachability today. FedNow is the result of smaller banks and credit unions wanting an alternative to Zelle and RTP which are both owned by consortiums of the big banks. The expectation in the industry is that there will eventually be interoperability between these systems, and it will not make much difference to consumers which one their bank uses. Similar to how paper check and ACH clearing works in the US today.
Shameless plug, but Moov offers a single API for payments. The clearing house's RTP system will be supported shortly, and FedNow is coming soon after. Check out out here: https://moov.io/
Interesting. I wrote almost the same code for work a couple of weeks ago.
Not sore, but it looks like the Transition function has a race condition. It calls CanTansition() before acquiring the mutex lock. I think this could lead to illegal state transitions.
I have seen way too much of interfaces implemented once in Java, and have argued against it unsuccessfully many times. I am not working in Go, and see the same.
I guess I don't see C as programming language for writing scripts in either. In my view any language that requires a separate complication step is not a scripting language, and therefore not a language in which one writes scripts. In C or Zig you write programs.
Before the CCP existed, Taiwan was part of China, and was occupied for many years by Japan. After the Chinese civil war and the rise of the CCP, the defeated nationalist government moved to Taiwan. It is only then that any US alliance with Taiwan began.
The argument is that the software developers are producing an asset (the software) that will produce revenue over time. There is an accounting principal to match revenue with expenses, so if the software will produce revenue in the future, the expense of developing the software should be delayed into the future to match.
I thought this was going to be about program performance and how to reduce the impact of interrupts and context switching on performance in your software. How disappointing.
I see. That makes sense. So maybe it is generics that are so fundamental that they need to be part of any language. Seems that Java, C#, and Go have all learned this lesson.
I am new to go, but to me, the language looks bigger than it needs to be. Why do slices and maps need to be part of the language and not just part of a standard library? I suppose the reason is special syntax, but having to learn that special syntax makes the language feel bigger.