Exactungly, Go's flavour of channels are full of subtle bugs. I could count on N hands the number of times I've had to make a channel to drain a channel.
765 karma · joined February 27, 2013
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/silasdavis; my proof: https://keybase.io/silasdavis/sigs/W1ncYgiogWNgpdzI7fQk-YTKecuo-Mj2tl9i3qEv-jQ ]
I don't follow the reasoning here.
Find and replace is the baseline, and for many refactorings is insufficient and fragile, however in replacing a stable, unique, and isomorphic token it is basically as good as it gets, so I think it is relevant. Its probably the least useful thing a refactoring tool could do.
Mosquitoes are buggers though.
Are they?
It's worth remembering many of these records are are kept on the basis of non conviction (though there is a time limit).
> In practice, musicians ignore sound and watch a conductor when separated by such distances [of 100 feet].
It had never occurred to me that a conductor was a kind of clock at an approximately uniform distance from the performers.
Sacrificing access to these social amenities on the altar of incremental privacy invasion and power transfer to an unaccountable basically malign organisation is hard to stomach. And rather inconsequential taken in isolation.
What technical and legislative means might be effective in limiting the network effect around group chats? For example requiring in law that groups be accessible to an open federated hub and spoke messaging protocol to allow messages to flow from syndicated groups established on other systems (like matrix or signal or whatever) to WhatsApp groups.
What technical and legal prior art is there here? I would be interested to hear some ideas.
If you are so inclined also interested in any comparison with https://keratin.tech/ and https://www.keycloak.org
What level of having a foot in the door does this represent for Palantir? Presumably future extensions will be lower cost.
What forms of additional data trawling might we expect?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Coleman_(train_dispatc...
> It's not for you to judge whether the $40 is "worth" $40. It is.
What other sensible quantative way of defining value is there?
The question is do we think the position leveraged to extract that value is fair. You seem to think that price manipulation (presumably of some explicitly prohibited forms) can be unfair. So I assume you amenable to some extrinsic definition of fair play.
In your example what might be the form of advantage you exploited? It could be informational or it could be based on capital. Perhaps your informational advantage is based on diligent study of a situation or perhaps it is based on cronyism. Similarly perhaps your ability to take on the risk is based on hard work or inherited wealth. I'm not saying any of these is inherently wrong but people can and do take moral/social positions on such advantages exploited for profit. Even though that discussion might be rather intractable.
So we can define the value of the trade by the spread but that says little about whether the information/capacity asymmetries were fair. If a well functioning market is meant to approximate fairness with sufficient diversity of participants then a market anomaly like this seems like more like an exception to that rule.
I do not think it is justified to call it theft.