askmike

That's subjective. It's a lot cheaper and fast to send money.

Agreed very much. I want to add that Bitfinex is making huge parts of their code open source: https://github.com/bitfinexcom/

Paolo Ardoino (CTO) basically pushes code every day: https://github.com/prdn

You're clearly listening to the wrong people.

It's usable for sure, but that doesn't mean billions of people can (nor want) to use it now. I'm using it just fine.

The internet didn't support millions of users after a decade either. Is the internet a scam?

I'm not sure why you are saying all efforts go into a flawed second layer?

a) Dozens of teams are working on other efforts.

b) Many do not consider lightning flawed.

The idea of Bitcoin is a system without any centralized trust, eg. "what do you do if the bank mugs you" would be a counter argument.

Some people used to think/want that Bitcoin was going to take over all other forms of money. I don't think many people still believe that. In that sense it's just like other forms of property that can be stolen.

The idea here is that the blockchain model where everyone checks everything that happens doesn't scale to billions of users.

Fortunately for people who disagree, there are hundreds of crypto projects that think this is possible. Including straight up copies of Bitcoin like Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV.

I'm betting it's the keyboard.

(I am no expert here, I live in userland. But:) Does OS cache persists between reboots? I think this allows the postgres cache to persist between those.

While I'm happy to hear you are a happy MBP user (so am I to be honest), the articles isn't arguing current MBPs are bad, just that they are not the performance power beasts they used to be. He talks about Tim's shift from performance to thinner and lighter (not whether that's good or bad, just that according to him it kind of takes the "pro" out).

> And since 4G does not work abroad

What do you mean? I can roam 4g just fine.

The reason I said Google because I think that if the NSA pulled some strings at Google, this exploit would not have been published. As such this was all in the hands of Google.

I think open-source software is great as well, but assuming these kind of bugs are found because you can inspect the code is very wishful thinking that doesn't always hold up.

This specific example required a Google department to find it. Who would have found it if Google got restrained by the NSA?. Other notable examples include openSSL.

On top of that, here is a great talk about how easy it would be to infiltrate open source projects: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwcl17Q0bpk

It sounds that your additions aren't values by your team. It might be because (like you say) you are the only expert on X. If you are in such a situation you should be in charge for X, if not you'll be fighting these battles every time.

> I've written thousands of words of documentation and had entire weeks of phone calls to explain what is going on and the rationale behind decisions. Those efforts have thus far been in vain, and large swaths of my docs have been deleted during yet another wiki reorganization.

Great that you were writing all of that, but it sounds like even before that wiki reorg your docs weren't read or used by anyone else. Especially if you are the only person who understands what you're writing, why are you writing it? The only possible reason I see for spending all that time is for the situation where they hire someone else who knows about cloud as well.

> I'm frustrated when I make common-sense suggestions that are skimmed over, misunderstood, and get argued against seemingly by default.

Note that if you give common-sense suggestions about not X (backend code, or databases for example) but you are not the person who is responsible for it / in charge of it, you are telling people (who think they are more expert in that topic) what they should be doing. I'd probably fight that to. If you are given common-sense suggestions about X that impacts how they need to do non X, well that's work they don't want to do. I don't like lawyers or compliance guys telling me how I need to arch my code either (if I could ignore them I probably would ;))

Look at it from the other side: here is our colleague throwawaymyjob who is our cloud guy, whenever he is in whatever meeting (that's not purely about cloud) he is telling everyone else how they can do things better. But he's not responsible for doing that nor how that turns out.

This isn't just a frontend optimization that can be applied in isolation by a good dev. With WS or SSE there now needs to be server written & supported to push this data over. On top of all the networking issues that come with these streaming protocols.

> Why shouldn't they care about their performance too?

They definitely do this for everything they push out that runs on billions of devices for people all over the world. How many people use Google to keep track of the live score of "the Laver Cup tennis championship in Australia?" I'd be surprised if that's more than 100. But Google has these numbers, and based on that they've chosen not to optimize this.

Good point. I meant there is no reason to dispute the article because it talks about CF monetizing that data. Because it doesn't.

This is where me and the author disagree with you. In most places in Europe there is a complete distrust of US companies and hosting anything on US soil.

Historically we've seen many cases of US companies handing over data to US authorities (willingly or not).

I should have worded that differently: the default is a US company. Which applies to everyone who doesn't change it specifically for Firefox (the vast majority of users).

> if you're silly enough to believe that CF is actively logging DoH requests and selling them (CF is involved with serving vast swathes of the internet anyway - if they wanted to go down this route they have far more lucrative avenues open than selling DNS requests by IP).

I don't think anyone believes CF will start selling data, that's not what the article argues.

Regardless, it's opt-out not opt-in. Which is against newer consumer protection laws such as GDPR.

> DoH is vital to protect users around the world from censorship and worse.

This isn't black and white. Yes there is upside (as both you and the article agree), but the downside of how DoH is implemented here is that you have to point all your DNS queries to a US company. Historically we've seen how this is a bad idea for global internet privacy (eg. PRISM, etc).

Disclaimer: arguably a quant but definitely not this kind.

In this specific case you only need access to Trump his tweets, which you can get without parsing and evaluating the firehose (expensive to get and process).

> In particular, basic NLP and sentiment analysis is pretty easy, especially like in this case when you're dealing with a very limited vocabulary.

Exactly. With Trump's tweets you can probably find easy correlations between sentiment (good or bad) and a select range of words as well as tweet times, whether he is in office or not, whether it was tweeted from his android[1] or not. Statistically speaking you can also look at his overall sentiment. Eg. simply always short the market whenever he tweets might be the profitable move 80% of the time.

[1]: http://varianceexplained.org/r/trump-tweets/

Yep, but the timer potentially resets every time this money is moved.

In some cases more onchain transactions does mean more rewards for miners, as transactions will need to outbid with more fees for blockspace. How this relates to hashrate depends on things like the ratio of the block reward vs the block fees.

But in the context of "what if the the whole world uses bitcoin", the vast majority of transactions will not be onchain. But instead will be transacted via other more efficient layers (sidechains - like Liquid, or level 2 - like lightning).

There is no relation between the hashrate and the amount of transactions being mined. So to answer your question: That depends on a few dynamics, mostly the price of electricity compared to the price of a bitcoin given an amount of inflation (the blockreward).

Forcing coders to make legal choices is a sure way to make users happy.

That might have been an excuse in 1999, but I'm not sure it's still a valid excuse in 2019. This is why you should use utf8.

It's not for everyone I talk to he doesn't really value privacy that much (but still dislikes Chrome for some reason).

User hostile as well I think. I think the expectation that you can just type something in the address bar and have it search the internet is quite normal.

> What privacy has the average Joe user gained by switching to Firefox? None. They’re still using Google Search and (most likely) other Google products.

I don't agree with this part. Though the bigger point is that not using Google as a default engine is very user hostile - as everyone is using Google. Of course this isn't ideal from a privacy perspective. But setting it to something else will only frustrate most common users. When I think Microsoft Edge I think Bing - and I don't like Bing.

> What I am saying is that democracy is better than no democracy, and no amount of doublespeak or whatabbautism is going to change that reality.

It's not reality, it's just your opinion (and those of most people living in democratic countries). Meanwhile the vast majority of Chinese people disagree with you.

> I think freedom of speech and press helps to bring abuses to daylight and rule of law is essential in reining them in.

I agree that they can be important, but they don't always solve many problems. Sometimes they even create problems: for example all the "fake news" and entities abusing social media platforms to manipulate elections.

You mean they can't enter the "educational centers" in Xinjiang? Do you think they can easily enter the "detention centers" in Texas?

> I'd also argue that the role of the UN Human Rights Council (whose recent illustrious members have included Venezuela, Cuba, the Philippines, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) is minuscule compared to that of the global press in terms of fomenting any actual change.

I mean the US is also a member, torturing people and commiting war crimes around the clock. Not sure you can dismiss the UN Human Rights Council due to the deeds of some members.