anchpop

I did that (distracting subtitles) on one of my videos and it had a very negative response. I won't do it again, but I was puzzled because I find it much nicer than the traditional subtitle format personally. It's easier for my brain to focus on. (And no one in my test audience minded.)

I love the liquid glass look and have helped multiple non-techie people install the developer beta just because they were excited to experience "the frutiger aero update". (frutiger aero is a bit of a meme on tiktok right now so that might be why.) It's fun to hate on apple and the ridiculous level of glass on the control center was pretty funny, but I do think they knocked it out of the park with this one, in terms of mass appeal.

The one issue is that everyone on the beta says their phone is slower now. Which is probably not because of the liquid glass effect, since I think that should be doable with just a couple of texture lookups. (One of those funny things about computer graphics is that often the most visually impressive effects are the simplest computationally - compare this to a "proper" gaussian blur, which is quite expensive.)

I wrote a post about a highly related topic here. It may be helpful to you in understanding the parent comment: https://chadnauseam.com/coding/random/how-side-effects-work-...

I think you're right. I produced a small rust program to test it by iterating over all 32-bit floats: https://gist.github.com/anchpop/30f119efd8d4c29a6a99202d57a5...

Output:

    Count between 0 and 1:    1065353215
    Count between 1 and +inf: 1073741824
    Ratio: 1.0

Who lost? Everyone who got laid off wouldn't have had at a job at all if they weren't hired, and they probably got severance packages for more than the average American makes in a year.

On Ethereum you can you decentralized tumblers like Tornado Cash

ZK rollups are not anywhere near 14 years old

They shouldn't even all be on the same computer. Ideally they would be engraved in titanium and inside people's safe deposit boxes

In this case, the weakness was that the keys that controlled the bridge were somehow stored insecurely. When attackers gained access to the keys, they were able to steal from the bridge. In a properly-implemented rollup, there are no keys to secure, so this attack vector is ruled out.

But more broadly, there is really nothing else with the same security properties as a smart-contract-enabled cryptocurrency. Paypal will delete your account any time they want, Visa and Mastercard will blacklist whatever industries they feel like blacklisting, etc. If you want a system that's decentralized and where these attacks aren't possible, you have no alternative. The problem is that current blockchain-based systems can only handle a certain number of operations/second while remaining decentralized. The appeal of scaling solutions like ZK-rollups is that they give us the same security properties as the main chain without any security compromises (relative to the main chain). That's all conditional on their code being correct, but given that there's such a large payout to hacking e.g. bitcoin or ethereum or zksync and it still hasn't happened, we can guess that the coders have done their jobs well and such problems are at least very difficult to find.

Right. It's possible to conceive of a rollup, particularly a zk-rollup, without anything like a master key. But current rollups do have those keys. ZK-sync for example has two, one used mostly used for upgrading the smart contract that has a 14-day withdrawal delay (or something like that) and one for use in case of emergency that has no withdrawal delay. If the second were compromised, it would lead to all the money stored in the rollup being stolen. But there's no reason in principle that either of these are necessary.

ZK-rollups are awesome because they don't introduce any trust assumptions (except for the master key issue, which is just an implementation detail). The only risk is current zk-rollup designs is that they could censor certain transactions by never including them in a "batch" (the rollup equivalent of a block), but with unpermissioned rollups like the one I think Polygon has even this issue is mitigated

Right now they're immature, but I'm hopeful that advancements in ZK-tech will allow practical ZK-rollups. ZKSync already has a zk-evm testnet running (which I believe is based on zk-llvm), so we're close. Currently all the big rollups have master keys which can be used to steal all the money deposited by them, but there's no reason in principle they have to have this. Polygon has permissionless rollups, so I'm quite hopeful that they'll be a viable trustless permissionless scaling solution soon.

what kind of volume does tornado.cash process? If it normally processes e.g. $1M/day, it'd take a while to use it as a mixer right?

I’m curious about handshake vs ens. The thing I like about ens is that it’s on ethereum which should make it harder to 51% than handshake (which is a relatively small PoW chain iirc). Of course with ethereum you need to pay gas fees which are out of this world (I paid $55 gas for my ens name). I’m hopeful that in the coming years ens will be able to reduce fees by partially transitioning to an L2 once zk-L2s mature, but we’ll see

True. It made me feel like microanalyzing one of their comments. Here goes:

On:

What I couldn’t find was a sober, dispassionate explanation of what crypto actually is — how it works, who it’s for, what’s at stake, where the battle lines are drawn — along with answers to some of the most common questions it raises.

They left this comment:

No technology is "sober" or "dispassionate" in its creation, nor is it neutral or apolitical, and thus anyone who is claiming to view it from that perspective is DEFINITELY selling you something.

First of all, no one said anything was sober or dispassionate in its creation. And it's trivial to come up with a sober and dispassionate explanation of many technologies, even political ones. I'm certain I can find a sober and dispassionate explanation of how Israel's Iron Dome functions if I really wanted to. And second, if you have a definition of "political" that's so broad that it includes literally every technology, it's not really a very interesting statement to say that some technology is political, right?

Human cancer might never be solved if strong business entities were to rely on the prevalence of cancer

Given the amount of money someone with a patent on a cancer treatment or cure would make, it's hard for me to imagine that

Thanks! I was accidentally pushing garbage to my IPNS name. It should be resolved now.

Yeah! That's why I'm excited for the effect system to land in OCaml. In general I think effect systems are more user friendly than monads and it makes the choice of how to handle the effects more explicit.

big, untrue, statements saying the real web is "centralized"

Well, it's not completely centralized, but it's more centralized than using IPFS for the backend and ENS for the namespace. I think that's hard to debate right? If I take down my server right now chadnauseam.com will go down for everyone. But if anyone has my IPFS page pinned, it will stay up for everyone no matter what I do (barring exploits in IPFS I don't know about). So in that sense it really is more decentralized.

Nazi sympathy under the guise of tolerance.

I don't understand why you see a quiz that gives you the option to pick either way as promoting one option over the other

foo() can be an expensive operation like an HTTP call. Or it might depend on a database which can change state underneath it.

Not in Haskell! I recommend reading the rest of the post.

I'm a professional OCaml developer, so I definitely know and agree with you :p I still think Haskell is "more FP" than OCaml because it allows equational reasoning in more cases. I don't think it's a problem to describe the platonic ideal of functional programming, since even in OCaml the pattern I mentioned is useful (for example a very common OCaml pattern is using the let-monadic syntax to simulate do-notation when using LWT)

In theory you're right, but in this specific case they really are the same - the compiler has an optimization pass called "common subexpression elimination" that converts the second to the first in nearly all cases.

As a widget maker, I'm pro widget-users even though I technically have an adversarial relationship with them. In particular, I'm pro widget-users because without them I would be without money and without me they would be without widgets, so we're both supporting each other against the harsh forces of nature that would leave us all destitute if we didn't work together.

I'm aware of specific stories where bad-faith tenants have made enforcement difficult, but I'm also aware of enough specific stories from the other side where tenants -- even some who have committed no violations -- have found themselves without housing to know that as a total generalization, these statements are false.

I'm aware of hundreds of stories about homicidal cardiologists, but I wouldn't try to make a judgement about cardiologists based on that because I have no reason to think the stories I'm exposed are a representative sample of cardiologists. In your case, tenants who have committed no violations finding themselves evicted make a much more sympathetic story than landlords who want to evict an annoying tenant, so I'd expect the former to be very overrepresented in what you hear.

In areas where home prices are high, the vast majority of homes have people living in them. So the idea that home prices are inflated by people buying homes and not doing anything with them seems a bit suspect to me.

Additionally it kind of strains belief that people are buying homes, paying property tax, etc. just because they like collecting them the way a kid likes collecting pokemon cards. More likely they'd buy a home because they expect home prices to rise and they'll be able to sell the home for more in the future. It may be unintuitive, but if your market is not incredibly supply-constrained this is actually a good thing.

Here's why. Let's say there's an up-and-coming college town, and speculators think that in a few years the town will become trendy and many people will want to move there. If they're right, demand will go up and home prices will rise. That means you can buy a home now on the cheap and sell it in a couple years when houses are more expensive to make a profit. But of course, when you buy a house now, you're contributing to demand for houses, so you're making the price rise in the present in response to a change in demand you anticipate happening years from now. Since home prices are rising, it now becomes more profitable for people to build new homes. (Their costs haven't changed, but now they can sell the homes to speculators who are willing to pay a lot because they expect to sell the homes to the people who'll move in as the town becomes trendier.) So what you get is people building homes now in preparation for people wanting to move here years from now. Making homes available will cause home prices to go down, until the market is at equilibrium and homebuilders are no longer willing to build homes for the price that homebuyers are expected to be willing to pay.

So in theory it all works out quite nicely. In practice, people who own the homes hate this because they like that the home they bought for $200k in the 90s is worth $2M now, so the lobby to get local governments to ban people from building homes. If there were enough homes that everyone who wanted to live there could, the prices of housing would come crashing down and homeowners would lose the bag they worked so hard to get (not).

You should read the homotopy type theory book if you’re interesting in things like this :p

But to answer your question, there’s one here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3835

Grammer conversations are the very pineapple of useless discourse, and I don't see why we don't nip them in the butt. Weather you say "literally" or "figuratively", both are equally understandable for all intensive purposes. So as far as I'm concerned these arguments serve no porpoise and we'd be better off if they faded into Bolivian.

Pollings actually shows legislators are exactly in lockstep with voters. For instance, a strong majority of Americans say they would not pay an additional $10 per month in electricity to combat climate change. So legislators faithfully do nothing to combat climate change that would cost voters in any way. You may not like it, and neither do I, but the problem is with the voters rather than the politicians

Presumably your state chose to elect some of the senators who voted unanimously to pass the bill because the electorate trusted their judgement. Sometimes making the best judgement that means consulting with interest groups like airlines, who offer an important service millions of Americans depend on. I'm not sure what you're unhappy about here

Unfortunately Blender is GPL and so can't be ported to iOS or iPadOS :(

On the contrary, US housing is incredibly socialized, which is why we have some of the worst affordability in the world. The capitalist, free market approach would be to allow landowners to build almost anything they want on their land, but US housing construction is incredibly tightly regulated and prevents that. Consider that despite San Francisco having some of the most unaffordable housing in the country, it's illegal to build an apartment building in 70% of the city [0]. Deregulating construction and renting would result in an increase in supply and allow the price to come down. (Imagine a world where cars are too expensive – would you support making the production of new cars illegal, because those are "luxury" cars only the rich can afford? No, you'd want those cars to be produced so the rich buy them instead of bidding against a poorer person on a used car.)

Another commenter mentioned Denmark's housing is also socialized. To see how they're doing, I googled until I found an english version of their public housing department's website [1]:

We rent out our 13.500 apartments on a strictly first come first serve basis. Our waiting list is very long, so expect to wait at least five years for your first offer.

As expected, there's no getting around the laws of economics. If there are 10,000 houses and 15,000 people who want to live in them, something will prevent 5,000 of the people who want a house from getting one. If you put the houses on the market and ban new housing construction (apparently the American way), the 5,000 people with the least purchasing power will be the ones unable to get a house. If you instead use a waiting list, the people without a house will be the ones least able to wait on a 5-year-long waiting list.

Meanwhile, Japan has a sane government and allows new construction, and the price of an unsubsidized Tokyo apartment has actually gone down in real terms even as the population doubled in the last few decades. Housing in Japan is considered a depreciating asset – it gets cheaper every year.

The reason US housing is so dysfunctional is exactly like you say, only you have the mechanism backwards. The owning class, who are much more politically connected, are able to use the government to prevent new housing from being built and devaluing their property. When encountering a problem caused by too much government intervention, I find it odd to suggest even more government intervention. Sure, maybe there's something the government can do to fix it, but the American people can't even stop the government from ruining the housing market right now, so why should we have any confidence that socializing housing further will improve things?

[0] https://www.sbuss.dev/post/explaining-the-broken-housing-pol...

[1] https://www.fsb.dk/fsb-in-english/