732 karma · joined December 26, 2017
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/ilammy; my proof: https://keybase.io/ilammy/sigs/4IXQQFLXYQQqzbgFmD4CGmxYfNI4scLL2ci6RQB6YF4 ]
Giving government money doesn’t really change the way government operates. The government has the budget for the year and that’s the spending for the year. If government needs something done, an item gets budgeted, money is borrowed, and paid out to get stuff done. Giving money to the government only offsets the debt; nothing else changes from that besides the number in the spreadsheet.
You thought A is great but you think you can find better so you go to B. They turned out worse, you then tried C and those weren't great either. But now A won't hire you back because they already filled the position, and there are no other available companies doing the thing you want to do. Now you're stuck with inferior employment options compared to the choice of not changing jobs in the first place, unless you're willing to do something else entirely or start your own business.
Depends on the field obviously, but there are reasons why people might want to stick with a not-so-bad job instead of looking for a perfect one.
I do git rebase -i often. Do I want to touch my yubikey exactly 37 times for the 37 commits amended, or do I want to touch it once and just trust the software for the next N seconds to sign only these commits and not anything else?
Now, if I'm the verifier, do I trust the signer to do it properly? Or the half their commits are actually made by their cat and automatically signed?
Signing a tag is a relatively rare and very deliberate action. A more secure approach is less likely to impact convenience, reducing the chance of compromising security because it was inconvenient.
* Commit references the tree. If you sign the entire commit object – which is what you want, not leaving a way to change something about the commit without invalidating the signature – you sign the file tree as you saw it and implicitly all its history. Might as well sign the tag then.
* Signatures separable from the commit have a benefit of allowing someone other than the author and committer at the time to certify authenticity of the file tree. For example, if the key needs to be rotated later, you can slap a new signature over the previous one.
* Signing every single commit is tedious, so you're bound to get it automated at some point. Now your signatures are worth less because your keys are always around to indiscriminately, automatically sign whatever.
That one side believes they can win.
It’s a bit tautological. In order for you to prevail you must be stronger than your opponent in one or more critical areas. If you think you can win then you believe to know the weakness of your opponent.
Depending on your morals the causation here could easily be turned: once you see what you believe to be a weak opponent, you go for the win.
What is the long-term one then? Keep importing people and hope for the best?
So all your dollars are put on fire and lose 2% of their value annually. You can watch your cash burn to spite the Fed, or you can give it to someone else and make it their problem what to do with dollars while you enjoy whatever you bought.
I use AI to generate the pictures when natural supply is scarce. Cache them locally, address by host key hash. Use the hash as seed for bonus points.
Everybody, because retirement is tied to financial markets.
We can’t possibly not pay out 401k’s, right? Isn’t that a neat trick to ensure that everybody cares about the health of financial markets?
How about giving that power to a random government official instead? And paving a way to non-fungible earmarked money while we’re at it.
Closed source? Your users are paying you for the headache of making your software run wherever the users need it to run. The differences aren't really that big unless you're shipping something deep in the stack or have to support ancient systems. And you still have to test software everywhere.
If you want a true technological dystopia solution then the train car should be engineered in a way that nobody gets in or out of the car without a valid ticket. Like, make entrances a double-door, then you gotta swipe your ticket to board, deboard, go between cars while enroute, etc.
That’s mapped space, so depending on the OS it could be more or less friendly to its memory subsystem. Linux won’t bother finding you actual resident pages until you do need them. But if the stack drops back down, it will be swapped out as any other dirty memory. Rust does not do any MADV_DONTNEED magic behind your back to aid with reclaiming memory.
Currency is for current things. You don’t store wealth in currency. Even in poor countries wealthy people store wealth in assets, be it real estate, businesses, cars, or cattle. Only poor people store their “wealth” in currencies, because they can’t afford any assets.
> there is no incentive for people to keep pouring money into it, so its value relative to Gold, USD should not increase too much
If there is no incentive to keep pouring money into it — not feeding the miners who maintain security and turning gears of the network — then indeed the value will not increase, but rather rapidly decrease.