javert

60 ms·

601.
by javert 7y ago
Is it true that seL4 has never "taken off"? And might it be too early to tell? I am under the impression that the people behind seL4 have managed to successfully commercialize earlier other versions of L4 before seL4 was created.
602.
by javert 7y ago
> sometimes the US government Yeah, but that's a huge opportunity b/c they have tons of money and constantly overpay massively for things. > If we only released secure software, that $300 billion market wouldn't exist T
603.
by javert 7y ago
> Let me also remind you that the story is talking about a specific strain and my comment was clearly not about that strain. Since TR4 has reportedly been present in Southeast Asia for quite a while, sighting a ton of TR4-vulnerable bana
604.
by javert 7y ago
I agree. But we aren't just surrendering our rights to fear and alarmism. We are surrendering our rights to authoritarians (and they are bi-partisan, by the way).
605.
by javert 7y ago
Yes, in part. My definition of freedom is that no initiated force is allowed. That includes no forcing tech companies to put backdoors in their phones. I'm OK with retaliatory force used in self defense, and I consider having a governm
606.
by javert 7y ago
Freedom is more important.
607.
by javert 7y ago
I don't believe that the stock market is efficient in the way you are suggesting. For one thing, there are lots of companies I can buy into that Warren Buffet can't, because he can't take a meaningful (to him) position, becau
608.
by javert 7y ago
Buffet has a methodology that makes sense. That is a better explanation of his success than positing that it was random luck. In general, though, if you look at mutual funds and hedge funds, I suspect that a lot of the winners and losers c
609.
by javert 7y ago
> The vast majority of people invest in founds that deals with short-term gambling I really doubt that.
610.
by javert 7y ago
I think you are not making enough of a distinction between short-term trading based on technical factors and long-term value investing, which is what Warren Buffet did/does.
611.
by javert 7y ago
I don't understand why you are saying that.
612.
by javert 7y ago
I don't believe the second quote is equivalent to the first quote. > There's no point in trying to game or predict [the market] at the scale of an individual investor, unless you enjoy the thrill of gambling. I don't agree
613.
by javert 7y ago
> Everything in this post is pretty obvious When someone is struggling to understand something, it's insulting to tell him or her that it's obvious. It's implying that he or she is a moron. It's only not condescending
614.
by javert 7y ago
> I'd say data races are race conditions, but not all race conditions are data races. This is not the case according to the article. In the article, transfer4 is a data race but not a race condition. Your example with T1 and T2 is a
615.
by javert 7y ago
This guy really knows how to insult his audience. (By repeatedly saying "This is really obvious...")
616.
by javert 7y ago
So you're actually just saying that the government has to tax to exist, and using the word "monopoly" wrong. I actually don't know of a government that has a money monopoly. That would mean making a government-controlled
617.
by javert 7y ago
That's not the case. The government could choose to tax in gold, bitcoin, a foreign currency, or whatever. There does not need to be a "government money monopoly" to have taxation and a government.
618.
by javert 7y ago
Miners don't really have much control in the bitcoin ecosystem. Also, the composition of large miners changes over time and can adjust organically, unlike membership in the Facebook coin cabal.
619.
by javert 7y ago
> What's your point? You said that the U.S. president controls the Fed, and that is just objectively incorrect. My point is to correct that, so that you and anyone else reading will know better. I thought that was pretty clear. >
620.
by javert 7y ago
Bitcoin is more decentralized than Facebook's coin no matter what because mining is controlled by an algorithm, rather than being an invite-only club.
621.
by javert 7y ago
There is an extremely easy way to get over that issue. It has already been solved for all fiat currencies. When big banks transfer dollars between one another, their balances at the Fed get updated to reflect this. But this doesn't hap
622.
by javert 7y ago
That's not true. People who don't do KYC to their customers go to prison. KYC exists for the same reason the drug war exists: People believe in paternalism and want to feel that there is some greater power that is in control. And
623.
by javert 7y ago
> The Fed isn't? This kind of response derails the discussion. Yes, the Fed is centralized, too. That doesn't defeat the point you are responding to.
624.
by javert 7y ago
> Even if it isn't fully apparent, the people can vote out a president that controls the Fed. The president of the United States does not control the Fed, if that's what you're saying. The current U.S. president is extre
625.
by javert 7y ago
> How would you fairly distribute ecoins if mining is excised? No idea. Without mining, you would have an even bigger problem than distributing coins, which is making the system secure. People are working on solutions to that (I have no
626.
by javert 7y ago
Where are you reading that he renounced US citizenship? I could not find that. I would like to read about his thinking on that.
627.
by javert 7y ago
> Given that there would be no growth in such an economy, there would also be no wealth creation. No, because people still need to eat, consume electricity, consume entertainment, etc. So wealth is still created. If it's a no-growth
628.
by javert 7y ago
I don't do anything illegal with bitcoin, do I don't have to do all those steps anyway. I do hope bitcoin gets better privacy features, ideally to the point that it's comparable to monero in that regard (not sure if actually
629.
by javert 7y ago
Thanks.
630.
by javert 7y ago
Can someone provide a summary of what he says? Anything surprising?

More ›