76 karma · joined July 1, 2010
https://keppylab.com
Somethething else that could help is cheap, decentralized forms of communication. If we want to enable real momentum for change, people need to be able to talk to each other without fear that every word is easily traced back to their government issued identity.
There is a market for justice, but more importantly hacking is about systems; breaking them, securing them, improving them. What we see here is a system breaking down in the wild, and that sparked my interest as a hacker.
http://jackschaedler.github.io/circles-sines-signals/
Made me realize how useless degrees are, why pi is used, etc.
Another thing I've gleaned is that Mallory spends incredible amounts of money to undermine the stability and security of our internet & hardware. We cannot compete with them on that level; we don't have the means to stabilize as quickly as they destabilize.
I actually want to know if anyone has any ideas about what to do in this reality. What do you do when constructive and legal means both fail? Seems like Mallory can get away with anything.
Hardware is unreliable. Software is possibly less reliable. We have known that for a long time. The author talks on a conceptual level about logical time, but this concept isn't enough to understand the real challenges & possible solutions of keeping interactions in your system logically ordered in the dimension of time[0].
> You can think of coordination as providing a logical surrogate for "now." When used in that way, however, these protocols have a cost, resulting from something they all fundamentally have in common: constant communication. For example, if you coordinate an ordering for all of the things that happen in your distributed system, then at best you are able to provide a response latency no less than the round-trip time (two sequential message deliveries) inside that system.
Consensus protocols don't provide a logical surrogate for 'now', a log does that. The silver bullet for assuring that your transactions are ordered correctly is immutability[1]--"If two identical, deterministic processes begin in the same state and get the same inputs in the same order, they will produce the same output and end in the same state.[0]" It's important, from the perspective of the implementor, to understand that there are multiple pieces to this puzzle, and that each protocol has very specific details that can make or break the reliability and performance of a distributed system. This is similar to how a small bug in your cryptography code can expose the entire system to threat. Paxos itself can be implemented in a myriad of ways, and each decision the implementor makes must be well researched.
[0]http://engineering.linkedin.com/distributed-systems/log-what...
[1]http://basho.com/clocks-are-bad-or-welcome-to-distributed-sy...
I cringe a little bit whenever someone starts on the "first they came for..." monologue. Not because it isn't true, but because it first was used talking about the Jews in WWII Germany. You're effectively playing the Hitler card in a debate that isn't about Hitler.
The US was built in part by this type of security. Chances are things would be very different here if the security professionals over the years made decisions based on moral qualms.
I am playing the devils advocate, but when you look at the senate, it's hard to actually point a finger at the intelligence agencies. This is the world we have made, fear mongering hardly fits into this argument, and certainly adds nothing of substance.
Since there are more avenues of trade available than say, with cash, laundering and other clever tactics can be used as tools to cover your tracks.
As always, the only way to keep yourself safe is through GOOD OPSEC. Bitcoin is an evolution of the currency concept, a tool for moving and representing wealth; nothing more.
Lately I have realized that I use google a lot less than I did in the past. I don't have to look things up as much, thus I have seen gains in speed when working on some functionality. The interesting part is that coding/reasoning without google feels a lot like whiteboarding. In fact I get into the same 'mental patterns' when solving a problem I don't need google for that I feel when brushing up on algorithm problems at the white board.
I don't come from long history of math rigor. I don't have a mathy degree at all and have hardly used a whiteboard in front of any professors or math nerds. But I'm also not an imbecile; computer science is built upon a foundation of mathematics and if you aren't willing to play ball then get off the fucking field.
Oh and by the way, if you think working 8 hours a day as a cook or dishwasher is a lot LOL don't move anywhere where there is any job competition at all you will be instantly fired.
It's a pretty good job though for most people is what you're saying, and I agree. But this also means there is competition for these jobs.
(with-test
(defn my-function [x y]
(+ x y))
(is (= 4 (my-function 2 2)))
(is (= 7 (my-function 3 4))))I'd like to point out that this quote was originally directed at Jack Kerouac. This possibly helped establish the myth that On The Road was actually produced in three weeks[1].
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Road#Production_and_publ...
Right now, I can create a rails app that doesn't use templates at all. I can start with a basic rails 4 install and quickly prototype an API that communicates through JSON or any other format I can think of. I can leverage handlebars and ember.js if I want to go that route, or I can stick with dumb old 'templates' to display my data. When you start coding ruby on rails you quickly realize that 'template' is just a word and that you are free to do literally anything you can think of, easily.
>> people of our generation have a bias towards thinking of UX and web-apps as desktop-first
Let us assume this is absolutely true. Why does rails keep you from writing code that honors this bias? Rails gives you abstractions you can use to decouple. If I want local data persistence perhaps I'll need support from other libraries--but only if I'm too shy to take a shot at writing a tool myself. I think you're on to something with the 'desktop-first' remark. We do need to be able to store data browser-side. We do need to address performance issues--especially as it relates to decoupling server-side data logic and application data logic. Rails is a very good tool for supporting solutions to these types of problems and packaging them in easy to implement applications.
>> But, I'm done with it. I'm looking at the next wave of leading edge of innovations for the masses..........
Obviously rails is useless if you don't want to make applications, but otherwise you can really do anything and it's not actually hard to configure rails.
I used to think that david hh and many other experts in the community were mean. Then I realized they have to deal with people all the time; not the 'grievances', but the attitudes. There are many trolls and one cannot be too careful.