HN user
Unrealistic security should be the only reason to disapprove of a bitcoin ETF governed by the SEC. Not only is it poorly suited for reckless centralization by thousands of indirect investors, but bitcoin as a whole would be setup up for massive government retaliation once the keys are compromised. MtGox x 10,000.
I'd be surprised if they didn't. There's a markup at which it'd be very economical to be a broader registrar. Future upselling is worth pulling users away from other registrars. Some of them will compete against CloudFlare sooner or later. Google's headed that way.
Good move. I've been looking for a security-focused registrar. Will CloudFlare Registrar open its doors outside of an Enterprise plan?
It's no more philosophical than saying the alternative is proper. Uniformity of expectations seems more practical to me. In contrast, I wouldn't see an advantage in map ranges ever staying the same even per process. There's no reason to promote that reliance.
It is to prevent hash tables being relied on for order. Randomization was added so maps aren't treated as invariant. The behavior in a range of a map is no less correct to be changing (in Go) rather than unchanging (in other languages). In other words, invariant relative to what? It's not too important. It's one of numerous ways Go promotes clearer design, at least in my eyes, to have disorder represent unordered and order represent ordered.
1. I don't see how.
2. Impure?
3. That's the point. It's to force people to stop using maps as if they're sorted.
4. Why would you want to rely on the arbitrary nature of a hash table for order?
5. That's the best type of boilerplate. It's short. It brings clarity. You might not need custom sort functions. The sort package supports basic types, which you'd use if you're keeping track of an index with []int for instance. https://golang.org/pkg/sort/
You can mimic that syntax in Go. I don't recommend it but you'd only have to add a function.
func it(n int) []struct{} {
return make([]struct{}, n)
}
// ex. 1:
for range it(10) {
fmt.Println(".")
}
// ex. 2:
for i := range it(10) {
fmt.Println(i)
}I can't think of any modern non-monopoly companies that have obtained global domination without a need to perpetually acquire niche competitors along the way. That's especially so as several companies (Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Google, and non-US players at large) vie for limited attention.
Rob Pike's Ivy: https://github.com/robpike/ivy
Video about it (Nov 2014): "Implementing a bignum calculator" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXoG0WX0r_E
I left it on overnight once. It worked. The pixel re-stuck several times after so it took a few more sessions. It's been normal going on a few years. You might try rubbing the pixel area a bit and testing other stuck pixel fixing software.
Days convey immediacy and scale. "Today" and "same day" balance precision. If time between an exploit becoming known and fixed consistently happened in 100 seconds or less, 0-sec might sound ok. Come to think of it, 0-sec is a fitting pun.
Exploring past those gates into membership is rumored to have led to a cabal of artists and designers in the web's avant-garde scene. We may remember hell.com for what it represented. It was a rabbit hole that unsettled minds, unfurling beyond depths of a web people previously thought they knew, to cause wonder.
Hell.com was in a league of its own in this genre. Those were the days. It's fittingly tragic that it's now reduced to a landing page of ads.
If you wanted to do that:
b := &a
fmt.Println((*b)[0])Corporations already decide what's illegal, largely, thanks to deficient systems. That revolving door exists. It's wide. The fact about law makers was worth mentioning because it often escapes people: pointing to a law, rather than thinking critically about the ethics of a law, is circular reasoning.
Answering your question isn't simple. I foremost think about how the lawmaking process itself could be changed to make it significantly harder to create superficial laws: the type of laws that interfere with consenting people; the type of laws largely responsible for so many prison economies and victimless "crimes." This doesn't answer your question. This is to say that it's a good question and it should be thought about.
Politicians decide what's illegal. Legislative decisions are frequently ethically repulsive if not crooked. It's usually circular logic to point to text on paper as justification of anything, especially in the context of ethics and discussion.
I agree that it's sheer insanity to prevent people from interacting consensually. It's ironic, considering drugs are decriminalized in Portugal. Free markets can't effectively exist as long as corporations as we know it exist. It's not as if there was a "free market" prior to this.
Exactly. This piece caused endless sighs throughout. It's especially unfortunate for someone running an exit node to not have his wife and himself up to speed on their civil rights, not knowing to say anything but a polite maximum of wanting a lawyer. Anything you say or do may be used against you... Those aren't random words to frighten. They mean it.
- Buyer beware of someone selling their understanding of economics as a "discipline."
- Supply and demand is a law not unlike Candy Crush is a post-scarcity economy.
- The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition are probably just guidelines, marketed as rules to sell more copies.
The bar for a "science" couldn't get much lower.
That's correct. Your duplicating a home wouldn't harm me. My magical house would be Free and open source. Let me know of any bugs if you'd be so kind. Catch and release if you have a heart. The corner spiders are friends and good workers. I'll set up a server. Prepare your robotic minions. Ping me in 15 years. :)
Personal desire for privacy is wholly separate from whether or not your duplicating a house harms me. It's baffling logic to suggest otherwise. But I'll play along. In this hypothetical, you value some data and I don't want you to have it. Therefore, our interests clash. Acknowledging reality on my end would mean attempting to safeguard the data from you. That means taking realistic measures to do the opposite of making it free or widely available for a price.
There's an intellectual world. There's a physical world. Ethics is not particular laws subjecting people at arbitrary points in time. Ethics is discussion of real-world damage and recourse. It's philosophy that must be perpetually debated before it swirls down a corporate drain along with any other semblance of "justice" flushed with it to churn out prisoners and chilling effects. Caring about reality starts with recognizing reality. Duplicating binary information is easy. Information can spread across the world in seconds. Some obstacles are effective at earning support and capital from information. Other obstacles are not effective. Security is generally weak. Some people are naturally curious and hungry. Some people suck. Most people are generally good. That's reality. People who have disposable incomes often want to encourage the producers they value -- with money, without friction. That's why crowdfunding exists.
You're welcome to do that. That's assuming you have the power to press a key and duplicate data that comprises a home and materialize it for your use. I'll even throw in a housewarming gift basket and a helping hand.
The unethical people in these equations are the ones who try to bend the world to their whims of "intellectual" order. They see no problem with violence on human beings over literal duplication of information. Economically speaking, a lesser degree of unethical behavior surrounds only people who duplicate data who would have paid for said content. A minority of content spreads worldwide on that basis. Hundreds of millions of teenagers and adults getting online can barely afford an internet connection if even a personal computer. Meanwhile, the amount of content and producers exponentially increases. They are not "completely unethical" for taking part in fleeting, frivolous entertainment -- the vast amount of it they wouldn't deem worthy to purchase in place of other choices. Everyone's situation is different. Rarely in the human condition is something "completely unethical", especially in the context of data and non-violent actions. Streaming services like Spotify are a good start. They respect the nature of information more. They try to appeal to hearts and minds. That's healthy.
Then there are industries where net positives exist along with piracy. Growing the size of a user/fan base becomes an added dependency of future success. Industry sets adoption. Adoption sets industry. Piracy by individuals is tolerated or even internally respected, while only the piracy of moderate and large businesses is targeted. The world, for instance, was awash with Windows cracks and serials in the 90s and early 2000s, having a tremendous impact globally on people who couldn't afford it or who wouldn't buy it. In the absence of such piracy, such as by a hypothetical corporate-fascist state putting people to death or by magical DRM, Linux would be in millions of more households by now.
Scott is hilarious. He's a bundle of insight. The slight jest about C++ being an alternative to itself sums it up: it can be a multidimensional beast. Quirky is a very kind way to describe smashing one's head on a keyboard repeatedly. That said, C++11 changed its game. It's so much easier to write in it without inducing bleeding eye syndrome.
The Go article has some fair points. Yet, most of the reasons the author discounts Go are reasons I prefer Go. Its minimalism is a virtue. I'm grateful that it ignores a lot of research overload. It's grounding. I see more and do more in it. Reading people's code and the standard library itself isn't painful. Go is versatile. Systems don't sum it up. In my view, it'll have a healthy stride in a lot of other areas outside of networking and the web, given time (e.g. desktop GUIs, mobile, games, game servers, etc.). In 10 years, we'll have exhausted all letters and be back on C.
D is a better alternative for many people. Speaking of Scott Meyers, C++, and D, his talk at DConf 2014 was humorous and you'll get a better sense of him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48kP_Ssg2eY
It depends on your actual goals. Personally, though I prefer Go for everything when possible, my favorite alternative to C++ is C++. If you want a true alternative, Rust is probably a smarter investment of time compared to D, based on traction. However, I'm uninformed about the D community as of late, and certainly won't be surprised of a future surge.
Unreal Engine 4 supports a lot of C++11 style. True, it's not ubiquitous but it is helping the upswing. It's quite the behemoth.
Yes, abstracting knowledge to the point of not being able to use or think in basic primitives is often counterproductive.
I can't think of a great example. It can apply to anything. Though your larger point stands, C++ is a not so great example. Many languages are roller coasters or extremely specialized. In contrast, C++ is on another upswing with C++11/14/17. It's used practically everywhere, especially in graphics, systems, and game development. A point worth mentioning is that good C and C++ developers are often capable of adapting to other languages and settings quickly. They're used to a lot of basic building blocks.
The war on drugs is many things to many people. It's certainly a jobs program in the industries of prison, military, surveillance, gangs, and distribution. Interests become powerful and wealthy through misery and exploitation. That's usual. Entire local economies now form around prisons alone, and in some cases prison labor.
It's not good, but I'm not sure the alternative is better.
I prefer the alternative of not abusing people. I prefer an alternative of not stripping away choice and any remaining sovereignty people have. The alternative strives for peace in reality. Undoubtedly, calling a drug war a "jobs program" will sell its violence. There are many ways to package sadism.
One simple trained motion of an officer's hand and a dog will go into frantic, "there must be drugs in the car" mode. Probable cause is created. Several videos have caught cops triggering dogs.
Wars on drugs are abysmal entirely. Among many primary sources of havoc and waste on earth that such law creates, arguably the most reaching is its impetus to imbalance power and destroy individual rights and expectations of everyone. Mentality snowballs. A large portion of society is trained to accept increased authority and violation. They laugh at people who attempt to peacefully resist and exercise any remaining rights they have left in the face of 'deletion.'
Stevia is new and it is being promoted by big industry...
Stevia, the plant, is not new. Menacing industry in that equation is artificial sweetener interests that used government(s) to ban importation and ban the option to label stevia as a sweetener in the United States and elsewhere. It was still widely sold, bought, and consumed. Strains vary. Some have a bitter aftertaste. Some are bred to be mostly sweet with minimal aftertaste. Whether it's consumed as dried plant matter, ground, or as newer extracts, a wide sampling sifts out tasty, palatable strains.
I am fine with it being on the market...
I'm fine with lettuce being on the market. It's smart to be skeptical about everything, especially on an individual level, and more so given your experience. I avoid artificial sweeteners, also. Not enjoying the taste helps.