HN user
In order to "check out a branch" in jj, you would have had to run `jj new` already. So your edits won't be "added ... to the top commit of that branch", but in a new commit (revision) when you checked out the branch. Then you can use `jj split` to keep whatever changes are important and discard the debug print statements.
any productivity improvements within that time become surplus value captured by capital.
Not quite right. Total Value remains the same before and after increase in productivity, assuming the labor force remains constant. But more use-value is created in the same period of time.
At the beginning, this is good for the employer, because the new socially necessary labor time has not been internalized, so the output can be sold for a price corresponding to its old Value. Maybe a bit less, to undercut competitors.
Eventually though, as competition adopts the new technique, everyone attempts to undercut each other’s prices, adjusting until prices correspond to the new Value.
It seems to work correctly if you include the last two lines in the first commit.
jj-workshop on HEAD (2cab0f1) [!]
> jj
@ unwquwxk samfredrickson@gmail.com 2025-07-29 18:47:18 f7db7c8a
│ Part 2 first
○ wskswvnt samfredrickson@gmail.com 2025-07-29 18:47:13 git_head() 2cab0f16
│ Part 2 second
◆ pnxpmvpz jkoppel@users.noreply.github.com 2025-07-27 21:54:50 main 4d04bcef
│ Update README.md with link to JJ homepage
~
jj-workshop on HEAD (2cab0f1) [!]
> jj show w --git
Commit ID: 2cab0f167c64cea1d23407e12196fa6d1b8aab25
Change ID: wskswvntlvtwzqutoowyqltsouklzmqr
Author : Sam Fredrickson <samfredrickson@gmail.com> (2025-07-29 18:34:52)
Committer: Sam Fredrickson <samfredrickson@gmail.com> (2025-07-29 18:47:13)
Part 2 second
diff --git a/part1/foo.txt b/part1/foo.txt
index 067f76475a..56c99c9cc3 100644
--- a/part1/foo.txt
+++ b/part1/foo.txt
@@ -6,5 +6,5 @@
* The best operating system is ______
* The best text editor is ______
-* The best kind of phone is _______
-* The best superhero is ___________
+* The best kind of phone is nothing
+* The best superhero is nobody
jj-workshop on HEAD (2cab0f1) [!]
> jj show u --git
Commit ID: f7db7c8a5f37df8c29e08a6697ca6cd59c2313c4
Change ID: unwquwxklkprlqoksmxzvoumspnmnknk
Author : Sam Fredrickson <samfredrickson@gmail.com> (2025-07-29 18:34:52)
Committer: Sam Fredrickson <samfredrickson@gmail.com> (2025-07-29 18:47:18)
Part 2 first
diff --git a/part1/foo.txt b/part1/foo.txt
index 56c99c9cc3..f48ae9b3f9 100644
--- a/part1/foo.txt
+++ b/part1/foo.txt
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
Maybe fill this out?
-* The best operating system is ______
-* The best text editor is ______
+* The best operating system is Linux
+* The best text editor is neovim
* The best kind of phone is nothing
* The best superhero is nobodySo renters who smoke can just go pound sand?
Um, yes? Always has been?
Scholars tended to associate it with the theories of economists working with the Mont Pelerin Society, including Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan.
Why do you expect China’s deflation to be contagious and spread to the West? Or is there some underlying cause that both share, and it’s just that China is showing the symptoms first?
Kinetic? Which targets do you have in mind that wouldn't start an escalatory spiral between two nuclear-armed nations? _Maybe_ some of the resource extraction infrastructure the PRC has set up in foreign nations.
You also have to consider the asymmetric nature of this information. It's quite plausible that the US has its "cyber-fangs" embedded in key parts of PRC infrastructure, but how forthcoming do you think the PRC would be about that?
I only found out about jujutsu yesterday, but from what I have gleaned, they aren't planning to remove Git compatibility. It's more that they want their own storage backend that can scale enough to handle Google's monorepo.
Seems like an overreaction. Which specific rule did revscat violate? "Don't be snarky?" "Eschew flamebait?" Because it seems to me that all they did was thoughtfully state an opinion that you had an emotional reaction towards.
Most people would probably say "too much." But since my cost basis is effectively $0, and I've already scaled out my position over the years during past bull runs, I'm not itching to sell. At this point it's "FU money or bust."
For the transformation of money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must find the free worker available on the commodity-market; and this worker must be free in the double sense that as a free individual he can dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity, and that, on the other hand, he has no other commodity for sale, i.e. he is rid of them, he is free of all the objects needed for the realization of his labour power.
Why this free worker confronts him in the sphere of circulation is a question which does not interest the owner of money, for he finds the labour-market in existence as a particular branch of the commodity-market. And for the present it interests us just as little. We confine ourselves to the fact theoretically, as he does practically. One thing, however, is clear: nature does not produce on the one hand owners of money or commodities, and on the other hand men possessing nothing but their own labour-power. This relation has no basis in natural history, nor does it have a social basis common to all periods of human history, It is clearly the result of a past historical development, the product of many economic revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series of older formations of social production.
Mods should prevent flagging on one of these posts so that those of us who want to discuss it are able to.
That's not really equivalent. In a fractional banking system, even if a loan is entirely "newly created money," it's not without strings: it's a loan, that needs to be paid back.
Someone wants to buy a house, the bank creates $500k "out of nothing" and the two parties enter into a loan. For the buyer, their $500k asset (bank money) is balanced by a $500k liability (mortgage). It's symmetrical for the bank: a $500k liability (bank deposit) is balanced by a $500k asset (loan). Once the loan is paid off, the balances go to zero and that "new money" has effectively been completely destroyed. What the loan issuer gets in compensation, of course, is the interest.
Even with QE, when central banks "print money" to buy distressed assets, they are buying assets, not handing out new money no-strings-attached. And that new money is listed as a liability on their balance sheet, with the purchased assets balancing it on the other side.
Monetizing social security would break this balance. A central bank would create new money, adding it to their liabilities, and then give it away, receiving... nothing? The money supply would continuously increase without a corresponding sink to "suck it back up." That would (1) lead to inflation, thus (2) requiring more money creation for retirees to keep up with increased prices; goto (1).
In order for something like this to work, you would need some kind of sink. That could be done with taxes. But then we're sort of back where we started. The central bank wouldn't be monetizing social security no-strings-attached, but creating money with a promise from the government that it will tax the economy sufficiently to pay it back. It would just be another loan.
0.98^30 = 0.5459, so more like 30 years. But, that's why you have to put the bulk of your savings in equities and bonds.
There's some hay in the cryptocurrency space right now about how MSTR's market cap merits its inclusion in the S&P 500, which some think will cause a "flywheel".
(1) Index funds purchase MSTR shares, driving up the price; (2) thus allowing Saylor to issue more debt to buy BTC, which drives that up; (3) MSTR shares appreciate due to its BTC holdings; (4) go to step 1 as funds need to rebalance and add more MSTR shares.
The weak points to this idea are definitely step 2 and even 3. MSTR won't be able to keep finding entities to buy its debt indefinitely, and MSTR is already trading well above what its BTC holdings' appreciation would justify, so there's some obviously unsustainable mania going on.
Interesting article, should absolutely not be flagged.
But it did move more (2% vs 0.77%) today, the first full trading day after the announcement from OpenAI's board.
Gives me "Page Not Found."
He's a California resident, though, so wouldn't any non-compete clause be unenforceable? Or does California allow such clauses for executives/founders, just not for "regular" employees?
$ du -hs /opt/homebrew/Cellar/helix/
139M /opt/homebrew/Cellar/helix/
This is passing itself off as a religious text as much as The Book of Eli passes itself off as a gospel. That is, not at all.
A call credit spread simply means buying an even more out-of-the-money call along with the one you sold. It would have reduced the premium collected, but the long call would appreciate on sudden moves like today's.
Should have sold a call credit spread instead!
For large shareholders, the dividend would still be worthwhile. From what I could find, Jensen has 1.3 million shares, so he'd receive over $200k in dividends this year. You might think that's chump change, but another source lists his salary at just under $1m; another 20% bump in liquid income is nothing to sneeze at.
I started as a regular developer and got pushed into DevOps early. From what I've learned and experienced, most devs overestimate their knowledge of how to roll out and manage infrastructure. Having some team to at least serve as a check on their whims can (sometimes) lead to things getting done better the first time around.
I think their plan is to charge the highest fee by default, unless forms to validate placement at a lower fee tier is submitted.
The obvious one you didn't mention is a 401k, if your employer offers a program.
Gmail, mostly via the Android client, sometimes still the web UI.
If your loop body is completely CPU-bound, then either adding a select statement, or a separate goroutine that awaits cancellation and closes the channel like collinvandyck76 suggested, will work. But commonly the body will make other IO-bound calls to which the context gets passed, so you can just handle the error.
for item := range channel {
_, err := process(ctx, item)
if err != nil {
return err
}
}But 0dte options on SPX are available for each day of the week now!
if (is_trading_day())
buy_0_day_to_expiry_options()They're a nonprofit organization, though.