389 karma · joined October 22, 2019
But sugar was never OK. That was pseudo-science.
A lot of dietary "information" is pseudo-science. It's not an area we've dedicated a lot of effort into because we came up with a food pyramid one time and that was that.
We're still learning how wrong we are, as is the case in most fields
you're are not presenting a feasible solution.
you can easily verify who this account belongs to, you cannot verify easily that this is the only account I have.
which is the problem.
further complicated by irrational attitudes to official identity such as you see in america. have a fraud resistant national ID system? fuck no! we want to use an unsafe mechanism never built for this purpose and impossible to safe guard!
good luck with that
If MCAS _actually_ worked, you and I wouldn't even know about it. But as tribute to how poorly it was designed and delivered, we know about MCAS because it killed over 300 people.
Just an absurd point you're making.
Airbus are an engineering firm, so they are doing clever engineering things. Boeing was an engineering firm that has been run by bean counters the past few decades.
It wasn't "opposition to automation" it was opposition to innovation for the sake of short term profit.
Boeing's executives should all be hanged :) hundreds of people dead for no reason whatsoever.
The whole point of bitcoin is trustless action. I don't have to trust you because I can verify the transaction.
If anyone can verify a transaction, it's obviously traceable.
I think the confusion seems from the fact that you do not need to issue a form of identity to use bitcoin. Which is how cash works too.
If your intention is to turn bitcoin into fiat, you will be found out. Fiat is highly regulated, your identity is required. Unless you turned bitcoin into pure cash, which is unlikely at scale.
"Ah but Monero" no. Monero requires you to trust the authors because you can't verify any of the transactions, especially the genesis blocks. Use at your own peril. Bitcoin does not in anyway attempt to mirror this.
Half the value of a bank is that the bank authenticates transactions have actually happened. Bitcoin does too. Publicly. There's nothing "anonymous" about it. There's just no requirement to tie an address to a human identity, but that doesn't mean it can't be done (and you should always act like it has been done, lest the law come for you too).
The idea that crytocurrencies empower criminals because they're anonymous is braindead. There's a lower barrier of entry but scams are older than Central economies are. Crypto is just the newest vehicle and getting rid of crypto will not get rid of scammers (or ransomware).
For example: The Bangladeshi bank heist.
Oh come off it already. What a remarkably brain dead opinion.
Twitter _is not a public utility_. It owes you _nothing_. Their property, their decision. That simple.
I do have an issue with the idea of their JS manipulating your own website but fuck off with this "Twitter is a public service" argument.
- They don't have to give you an account
- You are not entitled to make demands of them
- You can always use another service
Goddamned children. Enough already.
pyenv I can understand. dunno the others.
but goenv?? you deserve whatever hell this is. it's a single binary configurable with an envvar for gopher sake. just RTFM.
April 1st, 2022
You don't like pre-live because it doesn't have parity with production, so you use a developers laptop? What???
I stopped reading at that point because that's pretty indicative of either a specific niche or a poorly thought out problem/solution set
you cannot fight entropy, you can only feed it
Standardized testing is a joke. There are other, better forms of tests. See: Europe
1) There is too much knowledge to fit inside one person's head. Cooperation is the keystone of success.
2) Your team will grow. You will need to share this knowledge somehow before the trust can be given
But in defense of this view point: code reviews shouldn't be the opposite of what you're talking about.
I trust my teammates to catch any mistakes I've made. I'm human and therefore fallible. It's going to happen.
I trust mistakes they've made are for the same reasons.
What you're trusting is your teammates are top tier 1% every time and bordering on being super human.
I'm trusting that my team has my back and we're in it together.
Things I've learned about my own professional code preferences since
1) I will not sacrifice readability for any reason. That is the hill I'm willing to die on. Reducing code is sometimes hard and that's fine that people like to challenge themselves by doing so, but not at the expense of readability. You will forget the clever trick you employed, I promise
2) Business objectives are second class to system stability. This is because the primary business objective is to be online. Failing a few transaction is bad. Failing all the transactions is much worse.
3) There is no such thing as self documenting code. There is just good nomenclature. Documents always improve someone's experience. On boarding documents for new devs will save you so much trouble.
4) I'm a huge fan of in memory caches. I hate seeing them in code. When they work, they're wonderful. But when there are issues, they're closer to demons than to bugs.
5) Data Structures. Data Structures, Data Structures, Data Structures. And then more Data Structures. Easy pre-optimisation, and these days it usually just means knowing when not to use "the default" data structure (such as ArrayList in java)
7) One day (if you're not there already), you will be on the otherside of this review. You're almost guaranteed to remember the bad times, so pay extra special attention to when the process is working well.
A simple trick I've learned is to repeat a process that worked from a previous role at a new role who's process is not working. Works more times than not.
The opinion as fact stating here is incredible. The law is the law because that's what the law says it is. This was a stupid thing to do. There's just no arguing that.
No such thing as "indispensable". Very few companies and projects die to a singular departure, you're just not that special kiddo.
What's actually happened here is a selfish desire to know things without sharing them. If you learn something new, share it somewhere.
"People came to ask the Oracle questions only the Oracle could answer for the Oracle refused to share knowledge by any other means".
Confluence is pretty good if you use it properly. Weekly knowledge share sessions are also handy.
Learning a thing and sitting on it makes you an asshat, not an asset. Seems OP learned the hardway, but they still need to remove their ego from the equation.
You're not good at knowing things (basic human capability that), you're terrible at sharing them.
The only thing worse than the idea is how poorly it's argued.
Boeing's issues are not software related. Those planes crashed because of MacDonald Douglas's involvement and the lack of accountability _for management_ that followed. Also the FAA. Licensed software engineers wouldn't have fixed a systemic issue elsewhere. Plainly a stupid, irresponsible and irreverent opinion.
Hopefully the author reneges on this nonsensical idea.
"Shiny metal, ug ug, me dig up".
Which is not to say gold has no practical use but let's not pretend that's the only reason why we're mining it
The Satoshi protocol is not about money.
It is a distributed, trust-less consensus algorithm. Finance was just a good candidate to start with.
But we can expand that much further.
Some strange examples I hear about how this is silly:
"You can't have a smart contract act as an employer because it doesn't exist" But neither do companies? They're an abstraction that we agree exists, enforced by law.
It needs to be enforced by law because of the issue of trust.
But if I have a mechanism that removes trust (merkle trees) then what's the issue? The contract will do what it states it does because that's the only option it has.
Granted, it's a touch utopian and I'm not advocating for setting this system up tomorrow. But it's absolutely an achievable goal
I feel like nVidia aren't _that_ stupid. But I admit I know nothing about any of this
The configuration of transistors through which electrons are punched is obviously not the problem (at least I hope it's obvious).
So it must be about proof of work chains, right? That they create high demand? That's about the only point I do understand, but I think you'd be hard pressed to meaningfully translate a bitcoin transaction to a carbon cost. There are some mining farms powered by green energy (less altruistic and more about being off grid).
But if we're talking about energy usage and environmental damage, we have to talk mining.
There is just no debate that mining is THE singular (keyword) greatest threat to the environment. Fracking, acid mine drainage, offshore drilling, sonic bombardments of coastlines, the ridonculous requirements of smelting. The list goes on and on.
We are stuck with that industry for a long time though. I'd argue the minerals that constitute the technology you're using to view this comment may have done more damage than bitcoin and co have.
In a nutshell, here's my problem with this argument: To suggest that demand is responsible for the damage caused by supply is just a crazy warping of reality. That absolutely does not make sense.
There are other, more pressing issues with crypto (like the lack of regulation around fiat exchanges and how they constantly get rugged) and those criticisms are valid, but they get lost in the noise of "how we generate energy is not as bad as how we use it". I just can't get on board with that point of view.
Doesn't meet the requirement: New investor money to pay old investors.
Which is not to say it's problem free, but that problem is at the exchange level. Art suffers the same flaws. And Yachts. And on and on and on. That's why we have regulations.
Desperately need regulation at the fiat/crypto exchange
Strongly disagree. The media are for laypeople. You wouldn't appreciate complex breakdowns about how proteins in SARS-CoV-2 work, too much depth.
I also disagree with the implication that a SWIFT ban is meaningless.
SWIFT is a notification of intent to settle. Modern banking (read: the electronic age) moves MUCH faster than money does. You can see this in ForEx. By the time the money arrives, it's worth something else. This is risk exposure and is partly why most banks like to backout into their native currency. Not always the case, but still a useful line.
Banks exist to provide 2 major services.
1: Trust. Doesn't matter what so-and-so claims, their bank are the ultimate gate keepers. If the bank says it's paid, that's a legally guaranteed promise.
2: Liquidity: You actually need to have money to be able to send it. Banks will let you use "their" money while your money is still actually arriving (settlement).
As you rightly pointed out: Banks make this money available to you before it actually arrives. The only way they can do that is because of #1: They trust the settlement will happen.
If there's no trust, there's no releasing of funds. If there's no SWIFT message, there's no incoming settlement. TARGET2 can be used without SWIFT, but good luck finding a lot of banks that will handle CIPS in place of SWIFT.
But by FLATLY removing Russia from SWIFT, they have successfully killed transactions in BOTH directions. Money can't come in, money can't go out.
There are arguments to be made about the efficacy of these decisions (nobody believes the vast majority of Russians voted for Putin, right? Cuz they certainly did not so pressuring them to once again not vote for Putin seems pretty stupid, but the west can't do literally nothing. Difficult problem) but this was an effective move to further crush the ruble.
I can't speak for others, but I'm there for the guests. Not all of them, but I find Joe to be an entertaining host, mostly because it's just different. The ones I enjoy the most are the ones where it feels like some random dude has recognised he's on a train with a leading world expert in a field he finds interesting but knows nothing about. It's just earnest conversation from someone curious.
> when he does occasionally have a legitimate scientist he can barely muster any response beyond “wow that blows my mind”
I love watching Joe explore complex subject matter with experts. There are so few interesting interviews with scientists just talking about why they do what they do and what it is that they find fascinating and why they love their craft. There are some real good interviews where they just geek out and Joe asks them really stoned questions. It's not for everyone, I guess.
More to the point, as long as people hold elitist opinions like this, then there will be people who distrust science (and people abusing that to make money)
Americans are such a fragile, precious people. Second they feel slighted it becomes this stupid parade.
Meanwhile, your civil liberties and rights are being stripped by the people telling you bullshit like Facebook is the one treading on you.
You just can't write narratives like this
Web3 is just web2 with a different focus. it's not decentralised, it runs on web2 stacks, it does none of the thing it purports.
Just like the lack of any real revolution in this supposed 4th iteration
Attention is a task dependent context. I can drive for hours with no incident but be bored by a meeting in 5 minutes. Very little to link the two, because they're not the same by any metric outside of time. To average that out is oversimplying to absurdity.
Secondly, this myth has been debunked _thoroughly_. I don't have offhand access to the papers but I will add some write ups about it. But the state of attention report report 2018 is a good place to start if you feel like a Google hunt.
Third, most all of the theories around a shrinking attention span are based on unreplicated drivel. And it is drivel. Psychology is a new field still figuring out it's limits and medicine predates science and has a lot of falsehoods-presented-as-fact (this is a huge problem and contributes to the rise of anti vaxxers). Not a lot of evidence so much as opinions.
I find the idea that I comprehend something less than if i had it on paper to be hilarious. I grew up on screens, maybe I'm just accustomed to it, but i have decades of learning mundane and complex subject matter via various tech portals. There is so much evidence that this happens on a large enough scale to dismiss this nonsense here and now
1) finally webmasters can feel the absurd amount of data they push on us for goddamned shiny JS that barely runs on my phone. Maybe they'll cut back a little
2) Hopefully this incentivises a bit more clear border segregation. More technical effort? Yes. Better for my privacy? Hopefully.
I don't like the language here though, specifically the lack of anything directly supporting my stance. But I prefer optimism and then realism
Those are forgivable. I watched a team get burned by doing software HMAC and it turns out the underlying native function in the kernel is not thread safe. Would have caught me too.
JSON being a subset of YAML is a core feature. It was to help with adoption.
There's a difference in not reading all pages of every document and not reading anything at all. Not even a well researched blog post.
If this individual is a junior, then awesome, they learned a lot of valuable ideas and solutions.
If they're a senior, yikes. Don't use technology you can't explain to the junior discovering core features and writing blog posts about it