jabbany

43 ms·

421.
by jabbany 5y ago
It's gonna be extra fun when tax season comes around...
422.
by jabbany 5y ago
> You can deduct some for house appreciation I mean... in some markets price on housing can do something like 10%/yr... so real estate _is_ the relatively stable investment that you can also live in... This only really makes sense i
423.
by jabbany 5y ago
Lacking any protocol changes in the near term, is the best (portable and somewhat secure) approach for an average person to just put sensitive stuff in an encrypted zip file or something...?
424.
by jabbany 5y ago
This also potentially gives rise to perverse incentives like the one described in this comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-01-12 Basically if there's an option to remove ads the platform hosting ads will
425.
by jabbany 5y ago
Bleach does go bad though... If left too long it will decompose and lose potency... So not the best example maybe...
426.
by jabbany 5y ago
Theoretically, the point of venture capital investment was exactly to give such a "no-strings-attached" period of buffer time to discover what revenue models might work for a new piece of technology with promise. (In reality there
427.
by jabbany 5y ago
I think it's closer to YouTube running ads in videos---it's more of a platform level thing rather than a "cross platform ad SDK".
428.
by jabbany 5y ago
That's being optimistic... Remember when EA put ads in games that people paid for? They will most certainly try to put it in immersive games if they can get away with it...
429.
by jabbany 5y ago
I think people are not happy about _how_ FB made it "economically viable" (by locking the system to tie in with an FB account and now by running ads). Most people probably want to see a VR platform that can stand on its own profit
430.
by jabbany 6y ago
Yeah. It's also very likely that in some cases only the local government benefits (bribes etc.) rather than necessarily the central/federal government.
431.
by jabbany 6y ago
This is partially correct. Every time a miner exchanges crypto for RMB (like with Alipay or WeChat), China overall benefits a bit. Because Chinese banks (as you correctly stated) are not allowed to hold crypto and exchanges are illegal, wha
432.
by jabbany 6y ago
Uhh, not for the coins themselves but certainly for the goods that were exchanged with them? I mean if you did this IRL, the party providing the goods would just report them as stolen and the traditional legal system can be used to retrieve
433.
by jabbany 6y ago
Yep. And China has done exactly that in the past when people were using crypto to launder RMB into USD. The fact that mining operations still exist today at large scales in China means that at least the government has found a way to profit
434.
by jabbany 6y ago
How is that even remotely strategically good for China......? These miners are probably making USD or some other foreign fiat at the end of the day which adds to the supply of foreign reserves without needing to use trade... And if they&#x2
435.
by jabbany 6y ago
In theory yes, but in practice it's rather infeasible to do 51% attacks IRL --- the main constraint is the people not the math. A 51% attack mainly lets you double spend, so you have to: (1) get a lot of coins and spend them on somethi
436.
by jabbany 6y ago
This seems a little dangerous since now the logged in state (likely cookies but maybe also hashed with identifiers like IP etc.) becomes considerably more valuable to steal. I actually see the opposite done, where any changes to login relat
437.
by jabbany 6y ago
Yeah, this is a very good point. I deal with this by always adding a second "cold" key when services allow multiple keys, and keeping this cold key somewhere secure as a backup spare. So if I do, say, lose my primary key, I can at
438.
by jabbany 6y ago
QLC is also much lower endurance, so at those sizes there's also the question of how much over-provisioning needs to happen to enable acceptable endurance, while still being cheap enough to out compete the alternatives.
439.
by jabbany 6y ago
There's no way to do this _discreetly_ if the key is properly implemented. When you register your key on a service, the service sends an application identifier down. Your key then creates a fresh key pair and sends a handle (name for t
440.
by jabbany 6y ago
That drop came with a drop in performance too... Most of the 80－100 $/TB disks use QLC which is painfully slow (slower than a spinning hard drive) when you outrun the SLC cache... Had to experience this during a drive migration with d
441.
by jabbany 6y ago
I don't think that the OP is arguing for "always" sticking to entrenched players, but rather for people to face the reality that the agility of startups come with drawbacks in their service (even though it's often not ap
442.
by jabbany 6y ago
Putting in effort unfortunately doesn't mean creating positive value ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month ). The good thing with FOSS is that the effort isn't _wasted_ since that code is still
443.
by jabbany 6y ago
The _old_ way costs money :) which actually limited the FOSS community to people who can either afford hosting or have access to some kind of free hosting through their job/school. The fact GitHub itself has become one of the easiest w
444.
by jabbany 6y ago
This kind of stuff takes a nontrivial amount of time and effort to setup and _automate_. Plus at the end of the day you still need to host the repo itself somewhere (not just the web UI), which means you will need a hosted place you can wri
445.
by jabbany 6y ago
(1) Running your own web service costs money (hosting fees) and time (setup, patching security issues). Often quite significant amounts of both, making it unattractive for small FOSS projects. Github provides a free and managed service. (2)
446.
by jabbany 6y ago
Pretty sure the repo maintainer still wants to engage with users as peers (via bug reports and feature requests as they mention) just not through code contributions. In fact, if you only look at the "issues" framework, GitHub does
447.
by jabbany 6y ago
Yes, the idea is that the effort isn't really eliminated. It's just shifted from reviewing the code to reviewing the new tests, which sometimes can be just as hard as reviewing the code when complex bugs are involved.
448.
by jabbany 6y ago
I have an anecdote contributing to a testing framework (of all things) that had similar policies. Turns out it's pretty hard to write tests making sure something asynchronously executed never happens sans introducing (flaky) "time
449.
by jabbany 6y ago
This is not the case and the maintainer outlines why. (1) FOSS means you (the "licensee") can do what you want with the code, not that I (the "licenser") am somehow obliged to take your input on it. If the maintainers fi
450.
by jabbany 6y ago
I see this as more of a branding choice than a "contribution limiting" choice. It's rather impossible to truly prevent contributions in FOSS (someone can always just make a fork). Instead, this seems to me as a kind of brandi

More ›