Kalium

21 ms·

211.
by Kalium 4y ago
That sounds like at-least-once delivery with recipient systems tracking known received messages. Which is to say faking exactly-once with the power of idempotency, rather than exactly-once. This is academic with enough abstraction, but when
212.
by Kalium 4y ago
How does this work? This means the consumers have to somehow know the IDs of every message that's been sent and if it's been processed. Either you have a shared database and all consumers are local, in which case why are you passi
213.
by Kalium 4y ago
I worked for a national champion fintech, for a while. One of the things I noticed was how it received clearly preferential treatment from its home government. Eventually things went sideways and it lost 75% of its value in one day. Wirecar
214.
by Kalium 4y ago
If I might offer a nuanced take? Risk-aversion and risk-friendliness are tools. They solve specific problems. They have to be judged by how well they solve the problem at hand, or else you wind up judging a drill by its ability to hold a jo
215.
by Kalium 4y ago
When you're looking for a national champion fintech company , a 150-year-old stodgy bank doesn't quite fit the bill
216.
by Kalium 4y ago
I understood what 6510 was proposing. My point is that the lenders consider this to be them not owning the relationship and it requires the broker to do all the CRM work. Neither sees the smorgasbord approach as good for them. Could it be d
217.
by Kalium 4y ago
In their minds, if they do not have contact info they do not own the relationship. If the broker has that, the broker owns the relationship. Making an offer through a broker means making an offer where they do not own the relationship. In s
218.
by Kalium 4y ago
The other wrinkle is that vendors don't want the broker to control the relationship. They want to have it themselves. So a big part of why companies like Lending Tree can exist is because they sell the leads and don't have to do
219.
by Kalium 4y ago
Yes and the person I was engaged with was attempting to make a half-baked case for worker-owners financially valuing equity in a cooperative the same way an investor with access to a liquid market would. Which is a patent absurdity.
220.
by Kalium 4y ago
I think if you want to argue to specific people that they should join your nascent cooperative on the basis that it will pay just as well, you should be prepared to have some way to back that up for the particular workers you're trying
221.
by Kalium 4y ago
You can take that approach, but if your argument is that workers can expect to be financially compensated just as well in a cooperative structure as outside one then you may experience some difficulties. The person I was interacting with ha
222.
by Kalium 4y ago
Yes, you're right. I think that's the problem here. Worker-owners can't value their equity for the same reasons investors would. Those reasons aren't available in this hypothetical context. I think you need a different
223.
by Kalium 4y ago
Equity is valuable to investors in no small part because they have the expectation that they'll be able to sell it should the enterprise become very successful. That isn't usually available to a cooperative - there generally isn&#
224.
by Kalium 4y ago
I suspect you may quickly run into the basic problem that your worker-owners like getting paid. Which will be challenging to start with, given a lack of products and a sharply limited ability to raise funds.
225.
by Kalium 4y ago
The article is the content marketing. It can be reduced to some political posturing followed by "buy my book".
226.
by Kalium 4y ago
This Vice article is one of the clearest examples of content marketing I've ever seen.
227.
by Kalium 4y ago
To be clear, shareholders do routinely pull their money from companies they believe are underperforming. This is what's happening when a stock price drops or bond rate climbs after a company's earnings fall short of expectations.
228.
by Kalium 4y ago
Picked at random to serve as an example. Like most places you'll find it has some percentage of vulnerable and marginalized members of the community who are experiencing life as an unsheltered person. A quick search turns up this - ht
229.
by Kalium 4y ago
> There is absolutely enough food and shelther available on this planet for every man, woman and child to have a roof over their heads and enough to eat. It is a choice to deny it to them. Why? So a handful of people can become obscenely
230.
by Kalium 4y ago
A quick search (it was the first hit for train derailment tracker) brings up this: https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/que... Having poked at it a bit, it does seem happy to spit out a list of
231.
by Kalium 4y ago
I believe the point being made is that converting office buildings into affordable housing is more difficult and expensive than building that housing from scratch. If we want to help people escape rent feudalism first, we might consider wha
232.
by Kalium 4y ago
Yes, the original statement was overly narrow in its view of patents and contracts. Not only should you not enter into contracts that restrict how you can treat your fields, you should also not deliberately act in a way designed to infringe
233.
by Kalium 4y ago
On the contrary, I would bet a fair amount that ADM and similar are scrupulous about paying for hybrid seeds from Bayer and similar every year. They may get a better rate for being a very large customer, but that's true in almost every
234.
by Kalium 4y ago
Perhaps! Though in this case it seems he engaged in the behavior over an extended period of time and did not consider the patented crops a problem.
235.
by Kalium 4y ago
Then, without a license, he had no right to exploit the patented technology. The farmer acted in a way that showed a knowing and deliberate exploitation of the patented technology. There seems to be a disconnect here, but I'm not seein
236.
by Kalium 4y ago
Then he acted in a way that made it clear he was using the patented materials without a license. Specifically, spraying his fields with Round-up that would have killed everything that was not patented. You can shrug and say "Oh, it w
237.
by Kalium 4y ago
Even without patents, there's a whole system of plant breeder's rights. The idea is that even without patents, breeding plants for a particular set of characteristics is a ton of work and the rights system is a patent-like way to
238.
by Kalium 4y ago
It's not going after a sacred cow. The idea that Cloudflare is evil for centralizing the internet is commonly seen in HN comments. This writer does a terrible job of advancing their argument. None of the points are developed or support
239.
by Kalium 4y ago
CDNs are inherently "monopolistic", under the definition this author uses. The cost to entry into the market means that there's never going to be a wide variety of providers. That said, there's no shortage of other large
240.
by Kalium 4y ago
Why check and see if they have a point, when it's easier to assume they're a crank and extortionist and ban them? Gets you the nice feeling of making it all go away immediately.

More ›