semiotagonal

> And this is exactly what your company @PayPal did to me after ~10 years. With absolutely no explanation... #Bitcoin

> Paypal closed my business account, and kept $5000 for 6 months. No explanation, no one to discuss with.

Some of the Twitter responses make this sound like poetic justice.

That's weird, I don't think I've ever seen that happen. I'm constantly having multiple doors pop open at the locker.

Although maybe it's possible they do it some of the time and I'm actually much worse about fragmenting my orders than I think :)

This reminds me of how my own behavior changed when Amazon Locker arrived. I could order what I wanted, and have it delivered up the street without having it stolen off of my porch!

Now I'll order something off Amazon, then 30 minutes later think of something else I need, then 10 minutes after that get another item, and then I've got 3 separate shipments taking up 3 spaces in the lockers, because to me there's no cost to the lack of planning.

When Amazon tells me the lockers are full, I become furious.

I think it's just very hard to generalize from the performance of a combination of people that each have unique personalities and abilities. It's hard to even know what to measure.

For a sorting algorithm, you know what to analyze, and you know the result is generalizable.

Of course, once you support scripting, why not just do everything in a deployment script?

I think a lot of these tools are based on the assumption that declarative configuration should be sufficient. The tools eschew scripting because introducing it would call their basic assumptions into question.

I'm beginning to think the real answer for software development is to stop wanting a process. A team either clicks, or it doesn't. I think this happens no matter what process is attempted.

EDIT: Obviously there should be acceptance criteria for the product, especially where safety is a concern; but the day-to-day process is just going to be what it is.

I saw the headline, and my first reaction was "Google What?"

I'd never heard of this thing. Maybe it was news to the submitter as well.

I've found that Reddit (in terms of content, not UI) has gotten somewhat better in recent years, while most discussion venues have either gotten much worse or gotten rid of commenting altogether.

In relative terms, it's superior to most of its alternatives (present site excluded, of course).

The margin might be ample, but the fact that it adds up to only $60K per month might not attract much competition. This is no unicorn, it pays the bills for a couple of families.

In the absence of detailed understanding, it turns into a matter of trust.

Who will people trust more, banks and governments, or cryptocurrency nerds with untouchable money on the blockchain?

I think most people will opt for banks and governments, because when the going gets tough, the masses can overthrow them and expropriate from them. Cryptocurrencies put too many mathematical obstacles in the way of redistributing wealth against the owner's wishes.

I wonder how many people feel that migrating to Python3 would have been worth doing in the absence of being forced to do so.

Dropbox invested three years of work, actually hired Python's creator, and are still not done. What are they getting out of it that they wouldn't have gotten if Python2 simply had been maintained?

This development is a blessing in disguise for people tired of dealing with "decision-makers" giving orders continuously. A tedious authentication step is a good speedbump against impulsive CEOs.

That's true, I'm not looking to buy a Tesla. I'd include touchscreens as another problem but that's separate from the article's subject.

> But Kennedy's biggest concern at the moment is in the area of automotive safety

No doubt. I was pricing out a Mercedes online, and looking through the summary one of the standard features was "over-the-air updates". That is the last thing in the world I want. An expensive car shouldn't be acting like an Android phone. It shouldn't be connected to the internet at all.

If it's updating anything other than the entertainment system, then they're completely nuts. Get the internet out of my car, I already have a phone for that.

> But yeah lets continue to hate on facebook.

Yes, because they're voracious collectors people's personal information. We can hate on "bad actors" as well, we don't have to choose one or the other. But as long as Facebook is behaving creepily, whether deliberately or inadvertently, let's hate on them. There is no reason to tolerate their mistakes.

I feel like a high value target to me, though. If the environment is untrustworthy enough for Zuckerberg to defend himself against it, he should consider his own role in making it that way.

Yes. Don't hate the player, hate the game. If the visibility of your work is determined by it's "freshness", then freshening up makes sense. If everyone does this, then Google et al will have to find a better criterion to rank by.

One way of avoiding confirmation bias is to simply have no prior understanding to confirm though.

Maybe people will start sharing passwords, so others can log in and see how many likes they have.

Exactly! I've never read the book, but perhaps I've been influenced by people who have.

I think what matters more than kindness is simply allowing others to save face. If being wrong incurs a social cost, than any disagreement is going to become more heated, which may be detrimental to the community where this is happening.

Of course, sometimes it makes sense to impose a social cost for being wrong, but that's different from raising the stakes of every disagreement unintentionally.

After hearing about the MacBooks that had serious issues interfacing with audio hardware in 2018 (which would have been an incredibly bad problem for me), I'm too scared to upgrade from my 2013 MBP. It's too much money to spend on something that might have problems.

EDIT: Did Apple ever even fix that? I think it had something to do with the T2 processor.

They should accelerate a particle with it.

EDIT: Whip it around in circles with giant electromagnets.

Google, Facebook and Apple are all increasingly hated though, and can't figure out new ways to make money. The time may be coming where taking a shot at their profitable businesses becomes a possibility.

Their "low" forecast is significantly higher than the current price. I'm skeptical.

What does the assets of the fund have to do with anything? If a bunch of new sellers are (literally) unleashed, what matters is how much depth there is on the bid side of the order book.

I reckon that's generally true, but I'm trying to think through if it applies when composition of "the market" changes, e.g. when people that couldn't participate before (in lockup period) can participate now.

Is it still the case?

I'm surprised it isn't much lower. Maybe people holding the stock are too "pot-committed" to sell at this point?

That probably would help. I think a properly functioning margin system would never result in negative balances on liquidation, as long as the fake executions were filled at exactly the trigger price. Doing crazy but valid shit and looking for negative balances would probably catch other issues too.

This seems like the sort of thing that happens when the people writing the code don't know the domain, and the domain experts can't express how the software needs to be tested.