pas

it sounds like USCIS should do auctions too. is that not an option, or just nobody bothered with it so far?

people are doing this for ME/CFS patients, and trying stuff, and ... it's not easy at all. But the signs at least are pointing toward something coherent.

Yes, it's many variants from a disease, but still, like cancer we can tackle them one by one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldg2AdVnlOs

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-46965-1

If it would be easy already data from 2016 would have "solved" it, right?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1607571113

you mean that if average Retail Ronnie directly buys the new hot stock at IPO versus getting exposure to it through whatever ETF they have?

yes, directly buying a stock at IPO sounds really strange for me. (because either you know it's undervalued, but then it's insider trading. if not, then why compete with irrational fanatics?)

sure, but does that risk have good returns to go along? if IPOs are known to be very bad bets why do institutions (supposedly savvy professional investors) participate?

but also, getting IPOs included captures the upside.

of course, public markets nowadays are definitely paying a pretty serious "agent-principal premium". (since public exits are usually very good for the C-suite and for all those vested stocks.)

but that's the cost of access to equity (compared to PE - which nowadays underperforms public markets https://www.hamiltonlane.com/2026-market-overview/performanc... )

so yeah, it seems it would make sense to buy the post-IPO dip, but then you would need to have some kind of formula for that, and ... that seems ripe for gaming by speculators ... so all in all, it's just more efficient to do what the rule of the index says. (and of course there's already speculation at the discontinuity.)

(at least in Budapest, many moons ago) highly technical programs had some really infamous classes. but people had a lot of chances to pass the exams. each semester about 3. and it was possible to take the class 3 times (the 3rd required a permission, but it was formality, it was granted almost to everyone)

so in the end if someone was unprepared, they had at least a year to get their shit together. (but the exams rarely required real maths mastery, mostly rote memorization of proofs and a few typical problem types with really mechanical solutions.)

it's so strange to read about a professor getting suspended for being too strict.

... still, "on average" IPOs tend to make money, no? that's why people (fight to be able) to buy them.

this gives a nice comfy exit to many late-stage investors, etc.

and, of course, it's hard to say that it's great that these companies are mere shadows of themselves post-IPO, but also it's impossible to non-misleadingly assess each IPO as if they were in a vacuum.

obviously Coinbase is/was a stupid venture, but at the same time it was a pretty good bet at the time. and the same stands for a lot of these.

We should expect to see the process slowing down first. Until then we should expect it to continue with pretty high likelihood.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!_ZW2!,f_auto,q_auto:...

Based on how much money is chasing returns, and how steep the slope is, it's almost certain that we are still not at the end of this sigmoid cycle.

Sure, it might start to slow down, but even then we will likely see a doubling in the next 10-15 years.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!_ZW2!,f_auto,q_auto:...

Does Stripe have any published stats on the ratios? Did any merchant ever won such a Stripe dispute?

did you mean to reply to my comment? if yes, can I ask you to explain what do you mean by assumption? where is that coming from?

regarding WMF (and other non-profits, like Mozilla), this is a well-known phenomenon - regarding C-suite compensation (it's usually about risk aversion, and that the board or whatever foundations have, is also usually sitting on other non-profits, and rarely they optimize by moving to the cheapest place and hiring folks for much cheaper, etc)

yes, check program expense ratios

https://www.charitynavigator.org/discover-charities/best-cha...

but see also

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/arent-the-best-charitie...

and

https://www.givewell.org/

if people want that they will keep using and supporting (and contributing to) Debian. so far it seems that there's quite some trust toward these projects.

the evolutionarily optimal ratio of predator:prey fluctuates based on how close/far are we to ZIRP.

Rust likes to do things neat and proper and inclusive and community and zero-cost (or ALARA [as low as reasonably achievable]), and so on.

But there's no theory of standard library that they could implement. Shipping things together makes sense, but the maintenance burden is already significant, and there's also no theory of "ethically cloning open source maintainers".

I'm also quite squeamish when I think about all the unvetted dependencies, so yes, there's definitely a need, but I don't think slapping a stdlib tag on millions of lines of code would lead to great things.

But sure, I think someone could champion the case to introduce a process for adding projects to the standard packages. The projects would need to show some competence, commitment to quality and security. And the process obviously needs to have an orderly procedure for deprecation, and for "non maintainer updates" (like Debian has, for example).

If you can encode your request processing patterns in statically sized types, then you can get the same high-level memory allocation behavior on both platforms. Arguably Rust makes this a bit easier. (Though I have no idea how much of the concepts of mechanical sympathy made it to mainstream Java.)

If you have some kind of super vague complicated patchwork of plugins that all contribute to processing, then the JVM seems to be the more convenient choice.

https://martinfowler.com/articles/mechanical-sympathy-princi...

Because it triggers the "feeling of other" when someone is so close yet so far ideologically.

I'm sure you know this joke about dogmas :)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26624442

In some sense this is the same as the NIMBY/YIMBY question. There are perfectly valid reasons to want to live like Spacers do on Aurora, yet many prefer the caves.

Rust's stdlib is small, Go took more of Python's "batteries included" strategy.

So in that sense it seems like a category error to try to look for crypto stuff in the standard library. Of course this brings the well known problem of "okay, but then which one should I use?". Nowadays this is largely solved by a few web searches and LLM queries, and people are quite helpful at https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/ .

Go was shaped by the needs of Google, Rust is a wildly successful amazing experiment in programming language and compiler design that really got out of hand :) (A bit like JavaScript! Or even C#! Or Python. Same growing pains (async/await!), but arguably on different levels.)

it depends, if the functionality represented by the library is known to require a lot of memory (or simply allocation failures are an expected part of its operation), then it should be pretty much part of the API, probably with some tracing/diagnostics interface to get the required visibility into how much memory goes and where.

but for most libraries I on allocation failure I don't expect any fancy logging system. maybe even panic is fine.

there are many (right) ways for writing monad transformers, and it's usually situation dependent which one makes sense. (practical aspects such as which errors do you want to merge, ignore, provide some default/fallback result; and of course overall coding style consistency helps guide this, but it's not trivial.)

(there's a lot of this in Scala too, because of the various monads/containers, eg. the built-in Future, and then Scalaz.IO, FS2, Cats, ZIO, etc...)

regarding lifetime and performance problems, the best practice seems to design the rough scaffolding of the program first, with the structs, so the who owns whom can be figured out. but this is far from trivial. Rust is very good at forcing developers to stare at these problems, but solving them requires practice and patience.

for me the tech toolbox that makes sense is TS by default (because of the super convenient type system and tooling), and Rust when the circumstances really justify it (latency, throughput, scalability, cost effectiveness, or a need for a single native executable [though nowadays this is also pretty simple with Deno], or more safety/control [no GC])

I find it easier to review Rust (but Go too) than to write it.

it's too verbose, yet not explicit.

you need to know the conventions to spot what's not there (did you miss the error handling? or the magic comment for the whatever codegen serializer? c'est la vie!)

edit: just a few comments below an even better description of what I'm trying to convey: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48264853

funny enough LLLL.com redirects to qq.com [the Chinese portal]

the real problem is that the duration of the protection is both too long, and that the same protection is afforded to very small fragments of works too (for example to samples of songs)

of course coming up with a more fair fair use system would help, and automatic royalty revenue sharing, and so on. but of course it's very hard to find a one size fits all ruleset, and also somehow dividing up creative spheres is itself bound to lead to nasty boundary dilemmas.

how would that be enforced? unless extensions now be required to be WASM blobs, or otherwise using some very simple runtime. (ie. not JS/Node) I think we learned this with the JVM (applets) and the Flash player.

that's why it took so long for the attacker to exfil 3800 forks of ruby on rails.

I had problems with Claude reading hundreds of kilobytes of outputs because grep found things in node_modules. (ripgrep helps, so it makes sense to add a line about it into some memory file.)

Perhaps pnpm trusts the local store?

how?

Japan has a very harsh system, this serves as both a deterrent and also incentivizes people to make their equivalent of plea deals.

There's nothing magical about a criminal trial, especially in Japan, since there's not even a jury. And in general there's no magical threshold for proving guilt.

Nobody should be treated like this. We agree.

I'm trying to point out that unfortunately is a trade off, it works, and unfortunately a lot of people are getting treated like this all over the world for things that are administratively easy to prove and are illegal by the letter of the law, so technically easy to "prove guilt".