113 karma · joined August 27, 2014
I agree, but I don't think a "Bazel management system" would solve this issue, because the problem is people buying into bazel in the first place
> It's also not easy to publish a version of your package (A) that depends on another package (B). This would create a diamond-problem like situation where your package (C) depends on both packages (A->B, C->A, C->B). So, some code needs to resolve these issues and reproducible identify the exact hashs of everything to pull in to make it a not-manual process.
This is a good point. However, I think realistically, effort would be better spent currently on making it easy to bazelize existing code. I have (unfortunately) never been able to pull an external library without manually bazelizing it, and this only actually ends up becoming a problem when bazel picks up enough momentum in OSS that you are likely to find a external library that is already bazelised.
This is not really relevant. Companies have larger market caps than their intrinsic assets because people trade on discounted cash flow.
> Any small players (yes that means you and me) can easily lose their shirt in a down turn as we do not have reserve assets or other means (hedge funds) and are not able to participate in the next hand.
1. There's no mechanism that forces you to "call" a bet in investing. It's not winner takes all. 2. Why can't you allocate your bond/equity split such that you do have reserve assets?
The difficult part is where the system portrays this information to the user, which they have not shown yet. Their patents indicate some kind of projection directly onto the eye but there are obvious problems with that, such as when you move your eyeball. Also, running visual slam on a mobile device at real time with a respectable framerate is another challenge.
Wow, what an incredibly entitled attitude to hold.