terranstyler

IMO, the article lacks a comparison to the functional elephant in the JVM room.

This could well be a "Cara de pau" strategy where Senhor Ribeiros shows the pics to VCs or other companies, convince them to invest, take their money and literally exit fast.

I see all these people calling themselves libertarians arguing against BTC but I have yet to see why BTC would fail.

I hate this "BTC is not money" argument because the core foundation of liberalism states basically "money is what people voluntarily choose to use as money". So if they are convinced that BTC works (works at least better than some alternative) , why shouldn't they use it as money?

Volatility is not an argument. Before "adoption" of USD and gold as money, they most probably were volatile as well...

IMO the problem with the unstoppable torrent is that the people who decide where company dollars flow to can hardly tell C from Clojure so they rely on the opinion of those whose job would then be to say "ah yeah right, me and my team have been using the wrong tools all the way" which doesn't happen for obvious reasons.

I started up with clj and I am trying kinda heavy arbitrage here :)

This study basically says that Ghrelin makes you smarter. It may well be that this is to counter the effect of lower blood sugar due to hunger.

Being hungry could still make you "dumber".

The rupee is in semi-free fall, the economy is tanking; yet there is a bunch of downvotes if I point out that Mars missions are paid by the tax payer and add nothing to the quality of life of an Indian.

Except maybe for the patriots that are unable to distinguish between government and people. Stupid money spending is nothing to be proud of.

I think their attack doesn't work.

It relies on "publishing their newest lbock" before the others discover it. However, there is no way to know when the others found the newest block. Since they just try some Hash IV (afaik), it is well possible they discover the next block within seconds of the first. So there is an incentive to publish their latest block as soon as they found it.

Also, what I read here and what I agree with, selfish mining seems self defeating which reinforces the first point. The second selfish miner pool should publish its newest block just before the first selfish miner pool, pushing the equilibrium of "latest block release" to ASAP.

Any comments?

I suppose the mass of 1337 kg increases the PR effect of the tax payer funded show?

I follow typed Clojure with big interest, however, there is one thing I didn't read anything about: Speed.

I ask because if my untyped program is wrong, I debug it until it is right and at that point there seems to be no difference anymore between typed and untyped clojure.

TLDR:

- Does it improve speed (in comparison to "type hinted" clojure?)

- Are there other advantages of Typed Clojure other than compile time errors that I am unaware of?

I agree with the author. A few (actually still good) devs I know prefer to solve a problem in a sophisticated manner, scalable and all the stuff in 160 locs instead of using the non-scalable solution of 40 locs that will also solve the problem, if only for the next 12 months or so.

I think the problem is the incentives. As a founder I need the stuff done until some deadline while as an employee I prefer learning new stuff in a company.

So I found myself on both sides of this story and I have never been more productive than as a founder because I only choose the small scale solution because I can complete two tasks per day instead of one task every two days.

Note that 40 locs is meant as a placeholder for "quick to program and easy to maintain" code and 160 locs for "fast to execute, scales, worse to maintain"

EDIT: Worse to maintain as in "the solution is not immediately obvious or I need to understand the abstract concepts employed or I need to know some special lib to understand it". All three forms of "worse to maintain" are examples of a greater investment of time and brain to understand what's going on.

That is what I think he meant.

My point was that we don't have "3 generations of economic liberalism" (last paragraph) nor do we have anything even remotely close, see my first comment.

"Dog eat dog liberalism" is something quite different to what we have nowadays. I understand liberalism as something close to a free market. Now, western countries have everything but free markets. Here in Europe, social insurance and pension plans are state controlled and therefore monopolistic. Banks all over the world have legal privileges that wouldn't exist in free markets. Central banks are "calibrating" the interest rates everywhere in the world with India and Argentina already on the brink of hyperinflation.

Yet we call the current system liberal (or capitalist) and we don't like the current system, therefore we call it dog-eat-dog liberalism and want to end capitalism.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the author's point of view on this.

Ted Hopp thinks it is transformed to float in order to avoid an SO. Unless you know better, the irony is valid!

Posted on stackoverflow, what an irony...