unityByFreedom

Also, I doubt you can predict a crash and make bank on it without having a whole bunch of people point in your direction. You'd have to have been speaking about it publicly prior to and have had zero inside information on some too-big-to-fail organization failing. I know people feel the US justice system doesn't hold the wealthy accountable, but I also think the wealthy are pretty good at knowing where the line is drawn. You can have all the money in the world but it's no fun if everyone's out to get you.

> In this case the damage will be limited to a bunch crypto companies. The issue before was it hit companies we relied on for things like mortgages and current accounts. Crypto companies can just be allowed to fail and no one except their users will be effected.

I don't buy the argument that crypto lives in a vacuum. People valuing that asset are part of the global economy.

The question is, is crypto really as valuable as the crypto exchange markets claim, and do companies assign face value to these assets, or do they account for the amount of risk they deserve?

> Normally, in advanced economies, we try to use regulation to prevent or limit these events. But crypto explicitly avoids regulation, so of course it's going to pop up there. It's got nothing to do with not cleaning up after 2008.

The point I wanted to make is when you regulate too much you may encourage the growth of things that are unregulatable. Gambling and alcohol come to mind. I don't know that that's what happened, hence the question. Phrasing it another way, are we post-WW I (over regulated) or post-WW II (got it right, but you'll never be perfect)?

> So far there hasn't been a 2008-scale meltdown because it hasn't been a big enough market to have a domino effect

Isn't it more that the crypto + companies with cult followings + chinese real estate bubbles simply have not yet popped? These assets are big enough to cause a sell-off in other areas. Maybe they haven't dipped low enough yet, or maybe the dips are gradual enough to be absorbed.

> This is how you get a 2008-type crash - loans which seem to be unrelated but are tied to a common market.

How does this happen again 15 years later? Is it because we ineffectively dealt with 2008? A result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Or have we over regulated banking to the point the miscreants went underground to build things like crypto?

I don't get it. Crashing over and over doesn't seem good for anyone.

Indeed. Ironically, I think making a beeline for wealth makes it less likely that you fulfill your potential. You should target public trust, and your own trust if you're short on that.

Your contribution absolutely deserves to be rewarded by the public's trust which comes in the form of money. However, money is merely a proxy for that trust, and we know you can acquire money by obtaining short-term trust. Even if you later lose the public's trust for your previous work, you may be able to hold onto that money by hiring good lawyers, to say nothing of the relationships you built that may rely upon you not turning out to be a fraud.

That said, aside from having confidence in yourself (but not so much that you cannot acknowledge mistakes), money is the best proxy for trust that we have. It's fine to go after it as long as you understand that your relationships with people are more important.

I wonder if he still feels as strongly about basic income. That seems to me like something that would just increase inflation and not solve any problems, while at the same time cutting funding for other programs designed to help people in more specific ways. Like, I understand the aim, to enrich people and give them free time. Everyone deserves that. But that doesn't work if your new found money is worth less and you still need to work two jobs to get by. The markets, aka people, will continue reassessing the value of things regardless of your requests for them to stop.

Looks like he hasn't said anything about it since.

https://www.google.com/search?q=basic+income+site%3Ahttps%3A...

What? Cloudflare workers has far better javascript support than Compute@Edge, and you don't need to email them to sign up like you do with Fastly. You can try it yourself after creating an account.

They also just announced a couple of crazily useful features that Fastly does not have [1] [2]. In fact, you can bet that most new things Cloudflare releases are complete innovations. They are changing the landscape with nearly every new offering.

On top of that, Cloudflare workers are faster [3]. Not sure how many people need 200+GB downloads, maybe that's a niche Fastly does cover, though given their history of dubious claims I'd want to see that working before trusting their declarations.

Then, they are open sourcing the workers codebase [4], which is absolutely huge, along with forming a working group for standardizing this type of interface [5]. It's everything you could dream of because they're leading the way before you know you need it.

Seriously no idea what you are talking about with morals. Like, in regards to which websites they allow to be on their system? I'm really tired of this argument. We can't just close off core internet services to people with whom we disagree. That only increases tension in society. If anything, that speaks to Cloudflare's higher moral fiber.

[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/service-bindings-ga/

[2] https://blog.cloudflare.com/workers-for-platforms/

[3] https://blog.cloudflare.com/network-performance-update-platf...

[4] https://blog.cloudflare.com/workers-open-source-announcement...

[5] https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-the-wintercg/

It seems as simplistic to say it's the norm as it is to say it's an isolated case.

Why not just prosecute where there is evidence of wrongdoing.

I wonder if some people around 2016-2018 felt they had free rein to do whatever because so much other crazy stuff was going on.

eBay exec seems like another level. Does the episode have examples of people throwing away their c-suite jobs?

Ok but without crypto would black market rates rise? I gather that was the point.

Oh neat, an asset that can only keep or lose value.

Are there any reputable firms or organizations who do stand for speech rights?

I like Scratch. I'm not sure about Bubble's idea of teaching code "without a single line of code."

Eventually you need to write code. Spreadsheets are code, and functional to boot. Everyone can do something in them, and fewer are proficient. It's not that hard to get started coding anything, however it may be hard if you don't know where to start, which is where Scratch comes in handy.

Let's focus on first year of life. That's where greater risk for flu/covid exists. For younger than 6 months, nobody is doing research for that age range. For older than 6 months, research is ongoing.

> I'm pretty convinced this is an unproductive conversation given that you state we cannot erradicate the flu when we absolutely could erradicate the flu just like covid.

Okay. That's a pretty extreme view. I've never seen or heard anyone argue that. Viruses can be endemic. Like weather, they are out of our control. Humans can only manage so much. In some areas, nature exercises its power over us.

> You don't seem to understand how selfish it is to care more about personal freedoms than the accompanying personal impact to the health of others, such as that of toddlers. It makes me sick.

I have toddlers, and I do care about their personal health. I'm not about to advocate we all take the full lockdown being done in areas of China right now [1]. Fire is more likely to kill than covid when you lock people in their homes. And, I can't imagine not letting a toddler go outdoors for weeks on end. Domestic issues will flare up.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/udtnvu/extreme...

> Children younger than 6 months old have the highest risk for being hospitalized from flu compared to children of other ages but are too young to get a flu vaccine. Because flu vaccines are not approved for use in children younger than 6 months old, protecting them from flu is especially important. [1]

Parents of newborns must be vigilant, even against the flu. We cannot prevent Covid forever, just like we cannot erradicate the flu.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/infantcare.htm#:~:text=Chil....

Children have far more success fending off all variants of Covid. It really is more like a flu for them. Nonetheless, some are still worried about them since some vaccines do give children less risk than catching the virus itself.

If you read HN, then I assume you read the science, so there is no reason to peddle fear about kids and Covid.

We've done it. Not fun with a family, but understandable given the times, and that policy is going away this summer.

A related response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31189893

Okay. Well I'm in Taiwan and it's all no big deal. Certainly not a shitshow.

Are you in Taiwan and able to assess the situation in person? Restrictions have been small relative to the rest of the world, with the exception of last summer during a Delta outbreak that was later brought down by effective contact tracing.

Context and time are relevant. Both Delta and an undervaccinated population were issues months ago. I would not say the virus is winning, nor would I call the response here a shit show. The CDC here has been saying since late last year that we will eventually need to live with Covid when it arrives.

I found the article more optimistic than sensational,

> For me, this brief quarantine in Taiwan was a glimpse into an alternate reality where pandemic response was not a shitshow. People knew what they were doing, there was a plan and adequate resources to make it work, and everyone seemed to be living in a shared reality when it came to fighting an infectious disease. Even though I was a foreigner and a potential vector for the pandemic they were trying to keep out of their country, at every step I was treated with kindness and respect.

The author can be forgiven for not noticing the clipboards used to record phone numbers. If you scan at the door you can easily overlook them.

Plus, even some reporters here still ask "what if they don't have a cellphone". From a summary of a recent CDC/CECC conference [1]

> Reporter asks about the elimination of QR code scanning nationwide. What if people dont have cellphones for the social distancing app? Chen replies if someone doesn't have one, then they don't have one (lmao).

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/taiwan/comments/ucws6c/8923_new_con...

Now this is sensational. I'm in Taiwan and the number of severe cases is very small since the population is vaccinated. The CDC here has been saying Covid is going to come soon since late last year. They hit their vaccine targets and are reducing restrictions.

Contact tracing is trending down. They just announced yesterday you don't need to do the QR code or leave contact info at shops anymore. You're only considered a contact of a case if you live together, and even then there is now home quarantine.

The virus isn't winning. Everyone who wanted to be is vaccinated. The thing to track now is severe reactions, not positive tests. The government in Taiwan has already acknowledged that they're probably undercounting cases. Meanwhile, they are reducing restrictions, and less rigorous contact tracing, except for arrivals on the small chance they bring in a new variant.

> One reason they are not removing it is because the government does not want to be seen as being "wrong" about covid policy.

I'm in Taiwan and this doesn't track. Taiwan has succeeded because they have continually adjusted according to research. They were always ahead of the game, having been the ones to alert the WHO of the existence of Covid (see the timeline [1]).

There are a lot of politics here, like anywhere. Opponents to the current administration are looking for an edge to break through what's been a phenomenal response from the government. The challengers' chance will come eventually, but I'm not sure it will come as a result of the government's handling of this pandemic. In my opinion, the challengers' attempts to win small battles over which-day-quarantine-should-be-discarded is likely to make them appear more frantic than organized. Rather than organizing, they've been wasting breath over minor quibbles week after week for the entirety of the last two years. It's really kind of unfortunate because instead of competing with better ideas, they keep trying to undermine, yet in doing so they have mostly undermined themselves.

[1] https://taiwancanhelp.us/

You might get that deal on a server, but not a mobile or broadband contract.

Now that I think of it, I don't know whether my capped mobile usage counts uploads towards my contracted limits. I assume it does.

The link here appears to be broken. Here is the correct one, fyi @dang

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/04/isps-cant-find-a...

ISPs took tons of taxpayer dollars, often have lousy service, maintain regional monopolies, and lobby municipalities out of building their own networks with shady dealings. Who would be satisified with that? We can do better.

> But given the state of the market, I don't know a _single_ ISP or customer that would confuse DIA for regular bandwidth.

You brought up DIA. I didn't see anyone else comment on it.

> this feels like a theoretical concern as of yet.

This was Ajit Pai's argument. That we should regulate nothing until there's a problem. There are two problems with it,

(1) It's already a problem. There have been documented examples of ISPs throttling, favoring their own partnered content. Also they are actively expanding or seeking to expand zero rating which is anti-competitive.

(2) At the point you actually have a barren landscape in which competitors cannot grow, you've already sucked in a slew of investors on the idea that these monopolies' business models are sound. If the government steps in at that point, they risk being seen as the bad guy for destroying all that investment, which can have political consequences.

We can avoid all that by acknowledging the existing problems, and encouraging competition among ISPs. There should be very few people advocating for monopolies, and we outnumber them.

> Prioritizing non-streaming-service (e.g. throttling Netflix at prime time) packets could, for example, help a regional ISP stay competitive.

That only helps Netflix and that ISP maintain their grip. It's only competitive if by competitive you mean stomping out any new ISP or content provider that is unable to make such agreements.

Have there been no attempts in Germany at introducing net neutrality?

Also, does the ISP who wrote that linked article, Hetzner, still support net neutrality? I can't find anything else in English about it since the linked article from 2015 (archive [1], and new link [2]), but maybe that's because other content hasn't been translated.

> Hetzner Online stands for high-performance and high capacity Internet. In the last few years, our network infrastructure has expanded little by little in order to provide our customers with optimal performance. Currently, about two-thirds of our network traffic is directly exchanged with cost-neutral peerings of various partners. Among them are privat peerings with large network operators.

> For this reason, we have been increasingly concerned with DSL and cable providers who have no open peering policy themselves but are also not connected to other Tier-1 carriers with sufficient capacities. During the peak traffic period of 7 pm to 10 pm in particular, the concerned DSL and cable providers hit their capacity limits and thereby impede the fluent data stream between individual networks. This has lead to increasing complaints from the providers' customers because the customers cannot access their servers with the level of performance that they are used to having from Hetzner Online.

> These customers already paid for comprehensive and quick access to the Internet with their monthly DSL and cable fees. However, providers are no longer satisfied with just this source of profit. They now also want to collect revenue by charging large content providers fees for access to their network. For this reason, interfaces are being operated at their highest capacity -- to make paid access to the DSL and cable providers' networks attractive for content providers. The end consumer is then forced to pay double for unlimited access to the Internet. We at Hetzner Online do not support such policies and declare our support for full net neutrality.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150906025055/http://wiki.hetzn... (archive b/c the OP link is no longer accessible)

[2] https://www.hetzner.com/presse-berichte/2015/01/156830 (article appears to have been amended)