zodiac

> While proof of stake does have a lot of advantages over PoW, it cannot handle more than 1/3 of the voiting power acting incorrectly.

The 1/3 bound is without any synchronicity assumptions; with strong synchronicity assumptions you can get to 1/2. This seems strictly better than PoW (no liveness at all in an asynchronous network, and 1/2 with synchronicity assumptions).

What "simpler auction system" would you propose?

Iterative squaring is not paralellizable - to compute x^4 as (x^2)^2 you have to compute t = x^2 first before starting the computation of t^2. Calculating x^(2^t) mod n takes t squarings.

The computation described (compute x^(2^t) mod N) is designed to not be parallelizable.

The circuit is not a circuit :'(

> If minimum wage were $15, they could find another job that paid their basic living expenses.

Why is this necessarily true? Couldn't it be the case that minimum wage were $15 but they still couldn't find any other job?

> And there's no immutable collection in Python besides strings

frozensets, tuples?

This etymology is an urban legend.

But this would make it much harder to sight-sing typical melodies, eg one whose notes are all diatonic to G major.

Reason: a melody whose notes are all diatonic to G is almost indistinguishable from one whose notes are all diatonic to C in your system while in the current one they are quite distinct. Furthermore, your system would make it very easy to count chromatic distance between notes, but harder to count the diatonic distance (or the scale degree a note lies on).

[citation needed]

> It should operate like a good old paper calendar.

In that case, you enter a recurring 10 am conference call every Monday, and the moment you move timezones you miss the call.

The problem really is (as mentioned in this thread) that the user's intent is not known.

There's a "simple memoization" version of fibonacci that takes more space than `fibsViaUnfold`. I think the term "simple memoization" (and equivalents used in these comments) are a bit too imprecise to be useful.

If you jaywalk across a road with a 60km/h speed limit and get killed because the driver couldn't possibly have stopped in time, I wouldn't really want to blame the driver

I agree with this and my comment wasn't trying to use "no one" in that strongest possible "absolutely no one" sense

The claim was that no one would have any faith in it though ^^

Maybe the federal shutdown?

https://www.secureworldexpo.com/industry-news/nist-governmen...

If you didn't read the paper, at least read the title: "unsolvable" does not mean NP hard

This is unrelated to your main point but I've always been confused why people cited an "over the board" ELO. Is your 1600 rating FIDE, USCF or something else? Aren't they not calibrated against each other?

Even assuming that AWS adds no value, what exactly is wrong with offering a "no value added" hosting service and charging for it?

Or they could have used a billing address different from where they live to start with.

R as in REPR

In what real-world prediction market / sports gambling / poker tournament etc are you betting on anything other than the output if some consensus process?

If your definition of a good license is "the terms are as unrestrictive as possible" why not release all software into the public domain?

There's legitimate arguments to be made for more restrictive licenses, even if I don't agree with them all the time.

Couldn't it be argued that a design without these unintereuptable states artificially constrains the user (of the driver) by preventing them from entering a state where all signals are blocked?

Not saying these should be the primary considerations, but I don't really understand how "don't artificially constrain the user" can be a consistent design principle...

The link you posted doesn't support that etymology; there are some proposed etymologies here https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/145376/what-is-t...

If you just want to annotate sounds, it seems like your goals overlap a lot with some uses IPA is designed for. Wiktionary gives /sɑs/ as one pronunciation of sauce.

In any case, you'd have to solve the same problems people already using IPA for English deal with. For one, you'd probably want the same spelling system to be used across all major English dialects, at least necessitating something like using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphoneme.

An example of a situation that shows the necessity of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/2g50oo/working... (specifically the pronunciation of "bed", "bad" and "bid" in the GA and NZE dialects)

So for most speakers, different written symbols might be pronounced the same way (i.e. the map from symbol to sound is not injective, and furthermore the map changes depending on which dialect of English you speak).

Additionally, you probably can't simultaneously achieve the goals of

1. use only one character per phoneme

2. use only the 26 characters of the alphabet

If you insist on keeping property (2), some phonemes will be written using (say) two characters, but you'd have to make sure that there's no ambiguity (as there would be if there were three vowels written respectively "e", "i" and "ei").

For sure, we should be careful of biased reporting and also evaluate Matt's arguments critically. But you seemed to be suggesting that Musk's prolificity somehow means we shouldn't take any criticism against him seriously

His prolificity as a maker is orthogonal to the practicality of his proposal and the legality of his statements, the things Matt Levine talks about

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

> At that point they are no better than simply looking at the stocks (the predicted market).

Are you assuming that prediction markets are only over stock prices? What about a market about the winner of the next US presidential election?