HN user

TakeBlaster16

1,027 karma
Posts1
Comments186
View on HN

I said the same thing in 1983: it's been 14 years since ARPANET, how long will we be in the early stages of the internet? It took 50 years of hard work before the day came when you could order a burrito from your couch. Sometimes change takes a generation or two. Be patient.

[dead] 4 years ago

First COVID, then Putin, and now Dylan. When will it end?

    enum MyEnum { Ok(u8), NotOk }
    
    fn main() {
        let value = MyEnum::Ok(42);
        assert!(matches!(value, MyEnum::Ok(_)));
        
        match value {
            MyEnum::Ok(x) => assert_eq!(x, 42),
            MyEnum::NotOk => unreachable!(),
        }
    }
No unsafe to be found. The feature is there, it just has a different keyword than you might be used to -- the same way Haskell and Java both have something called "class" that mean different things.

I was expecting that too. It seems strictly more expressive, since once you have the niche, you can do anything you like with it.

And INT_MIN is a better place for it than zero imo. If Rust had a `BalancedI32` I would reach for it a lot more than I use the NonZero types. In my code at least, I've found zero is a pretty useful number.

Angry Reviewer 4 years ago

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Reviewer's suggestions for your text:

Looks like this text is perfect!

If anyone would like to publish my paper, contact me. Email in bio.

Dear Chess World 4 years ago

Honestly I think all you'd need is the piece. There are 6 pieces, so that's 3 bits of info with room to spare.

Is there a way to set a global timeout now? Last I checked, you could only set them per job, i.e. you have to copy-paste "timeout-minutes: 15" to every single job in every single workflow in every single repo, and hope you didn't miss one. That's been the case for years[1] and a quick search shows it's still true[2]

The cynic in me thinks they like having the extra revenue.

[1] https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/25472

[2] https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10690

If usage is low - fees will be low, and the cost of an attack will be low, but the expected value gained from an attack will also be low.

If usage is high - fees will be high, and the cost of an attack will be high.

Security scales with usage, as does the incentive to attack. As long as usage trends in the same direction as value, I don't see the problem.

I've played with jid in jiq and IIRC they were very slow with large inputs since they re-parse the JSON blob every time the query changes. I wonder if this solves that problem--I'll bookmark it and find out next time I need to wrangle some JSON!

I only brought up halvings because it explained the chart. But let's ignore halvings and talk about mining incentive then. Fees are the less important half of the story. The main driver is difficulty adjustments. If scarce fees come in, difficulty goes down so profitability increases. If plentiful fees come in, difficulty will go up so profitability decreases. Fees are actually damped by the adjustments so the absolute amount of fees doesn't really matter. So long as fees are above 0.00000000, the network will be fine. I predict that there will always be some baseline level of competition keeping fees above 0.00000000, but if that is wrong, then things would likely fall apart one day.