Most things have tradeoffs
At some point you’re forced to stack rank two or more of your values in a case where they’re mutually exclusive
6,564 karma · joined June 24, 2019
hackernews@blankenship.io
At some point you’re forced to stack rank two or more of your values in a case where they’re mutually exclusive
At least for the HOA I was a part of, the CC&Rs were nearly impossible to change. Getting elected didn’t give you the power to change them. They were a contract signed with each individual homeowner - changing them required getting consent from every homeowner individually.
Being on the board gave you power over how budget was allocated within those CC&Rs. I.E. the maintenance and upgrade of shared spaces. Vendor selection for violation detection/enforcement. Etc.
This sounds like fairy dust for this use case. You’re playing a real time game where latency matters, and you’re running all that latency sensitive traffic through a network of relays running on altruism - each hop would introduce latency and you’d deal with contention in the network.
The play experience would be awful.
> intent to murder
Two different things
If kitchen knife companies where, in fact, stabbing people to death in their R&D labs - I do believe they would get in trouble for that.
That mission might be political - but the politics follow from the mission not the other way around.
The mission I’d personally like out of a product that fits Tor’s space is: the ability to unconditionally communicate securely and privately over the public Internet.
Saying that mission is inherently political, sure, you’re going to exclude people who disagree with the mission. That’s kinda the point.
But saying that the narrow politics of that mission means the organization should be broadened to take additional political stances that would exclude people who otherwise would participate in advancing the mission?
I don’t know how that follows.
This is an acceptable filter for me on both sides of the table.
You are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you. Where you work should be a major life decision. These are the humans and craft you’re going to spend your time with/on for 40+ hours a week for years. You aren’t going to get a glimmer of understanding of the culture, people, and work in a single 45 minute interview (short of major red flags).
If all you’re doing is looking for a job, any job, I get this sentiment - and the other side of the table needs to be looking for a butt in a seat, any butt, and then these shotgun interviews work.
But if you’re optimizing for career and quality of life, having an extended diligence process is a pro, not a con. Especially since that means the team you’re joining has passed muster in the same diligence process when they were hired.
A strong diligence process signals the company takes who they hire seriously - and that the people who work there take where they work seriously.
The average citizen is not who you need to convince. The national narrative is set from the top, disseminated through the Central Propaganda Department, and enforced.
It’s not a grass roots effort to sway national policy in China AFAIK - you’re trying to convince a small group of key people who have enough of their hands on the steering wheel of a totalitarian state.
We have a content addressable storage system internally and we use a self describing hash for it, so we can change the hashing scheme for different use cases.
Multihash is ipfs’ container for this.
SHA-256 is considered quantum safe by the NIST and is left out of PQC migration guidance entirely.
The navy was up there to maintain superiority over water. The airforce over the air. The army likewise.
But nobody clearly owned maintaining superiority over the domain of space and any operation that needed to ensure uncontested operation in space was a joint agency nightmare.
Space force is chartered to provide superiority in space so the other services can conduct their operations up there. Space is clearly a specialization that is differentiated from the air.
> It is concluded that street lighting continues to be an effective intervention in preventing crime in public places. A narrative synthesis of effects of the eight new studies and a meta-analysis of 17 studies confirmed this conclusion. In pooling the effects of 17 studies that could be included in the meta-analysis, it was found that street lighting led to a significant 14% decrease in crime in experimental areas compared with comparable control areas.
[1] https://bra.se/download/18.47bb43da192711ebb374ea5/172950596...
Do we need bright white flood lights in places like Portland? Yes, they strongly correlate with reduced crime on the premise. This is the cost of a medium trust society.
Find a way to not have people regularly vandalize and B&E; many of the countermeasures can go away.
I live in a dark sky community and my property is unlit. I don’t worry about people walking onto my property at 2am.
Edit: yup
We call moon shots “moon shots” because we landed on the moon and generated incredible generational wealth from the technology in the process.
Had we not, we would call moon shots something else.
Play positive sum games.
You seem to say this as if it’s some sort of enlightened reason to “not”
Instead, I suspect for many, enumerating, quantifying and solving the impossible is precisely the reason we venture into the unknown.
On the one hand, yes, I agree with you.
On the other hand, I’ve played the game of telephone. I can’t imagine a game of telephone played over multiple generations has any sort of fidelity.
I write almost every line but I have one or more agents always running against the changes alongside me evaluating correctness, suggesting approaches, auditing test coverage, etc.
I’ll also use it for grunt work refactors, scaffolding, resolving merge/rebase conflicts, etc.