Thank you for your reply and for taking the time to read our comments. We appreciate your perspective and the insight you have provided on the situation.
However, I must say that your message feels very confrontational and pointy, and dismissive of the legal aspects of the situation. While we understand that the emotional and artistic aspects are important, the legalities of the situation must also be considered and discussed.
I hope that you can understand our perspective and engage with us on the legal aspects of the situation as well.
People really think "cryptocurrencies are based on code" means no fraud can happen with them.
The decentralized nature of most cryptocurrencies makes it difficult for a single entity to manipulate the market or falsify transactions, but it does not completely eliminate the possibility of fraud. In addition, the anonymity of many cryptocurrencies can make it difficult to trace the source of fraudulent activity, which can make it harder to prevent or prosecute.
No, people think that if self-custody your private keys carefully, nobody can steal your coins.
If you participate in actual DeFi where you keep your keys and participate via smart contracts, nobody can steal your coins.
All of this was true and is true. What happened is that corporations adopted the language of cryptocurrency to mean something totally different to trick consumers, like calling FTX a DeFi platform.
You want a villain, it ain’t the maxis who kept repeating “not your keys, not your coin”. It’s VCs like a16z, sequoias, and paradigm who lended credibility to centralized exchanges that defrauded people who ignored the cryptocurrency advocates.
The FTX story only strengthens the facts and narratives the cryptocurrency advocates have been saying. The real fraud is happening in venture capital which is rotten to the core.
And by the way, bitcoin is down this year but not nearly as much as VC darlings like Carvana and Affirm.
VC is the scam. VC is the engine of pump and dumps in both TradFi and crypto centralized exchanges. The real voices of cryptocurrency have been vindicated.
It has to do with FTX because people are taking the FTX situation and using it to blame crypto.
SBF stole users' deposits. Fact.
SBF could not have done this had FTX been a self-custody DEX. Fact.
Crypto's sole purpose is to prevent the theft that occurred. Fact.
The theft happened because crypto was not used. The theft happened because users did not self-custody (which they could have, as is demonstrated by the billions of dollars custodied in numerous DEXs today). Fact.
The fact that this happened in the crypto space is prima facie evidence that "Crypto's sole purpose is to prevent the theft that occurred. Fact." is wrong. Full stop.
You're conflating the entire crypto space (rife with theft and fraud) with funds self-custodied on a blockchain (never once has seen theft because it is mathematically prevented).
I'm not conflating anything. This is the crypto space. The crypto space isn't only DEXs, it's full of CEXs and its where the vast majority of money is.
And you don’t have the culture of controls that exist at real financial institutions. Often you hear a story of some firm like Amaranth or M.F. Global that blew up and what you always find is that the basic controls that prevent an organization from taking on disasterous positions are not in place.
It’s a simple truth that an investment fund that is getting more deposits from withdrawals can vaporize the money and not have any problems until people ask for the money back. That is why financial institutions need strict controls.
Theft and fraud aren't the same thing. Obviously, one can commit theft by the means of fraud. Fraud is a personal representation and trust relationship, and cannot be solved by a mathematical equation. A DEX might preclude the need for trust relationships in order to prevent the circumstances that make fraud possible, but it doesn't solve for fraud and, as FTX proved, crypto itself (using the commonly understood term, as opposed to the one you invented where the only things that are crypto are DEX) doesn't solve for fraud.
I've not at any point contested the differences between DEX and CEXs with you and you should really work on your reading comprehension so you can realize that.
??? Genuinely at a loss. You're conflating CEXs and DEXs to make a point about how "crypto does not prevent fraud". I said sure, if you want to include CEXs in "crypto" then "crypto" does not prevent fraud, but self-custody solutions like DEXs still do.
Because CEX's are undoubtedly part of crypto and nobody could say otherwise without being completely disingenuous. Which is exactly what our debate has been over.
It's important to consider the impact of excessive jail sentences not only on the offenders, but also on society as a whole. Incarceration can have significant social and economic costs, including strained relationships between the incarcerated individual and their family and community, as well as reduced employment opportunities and income potential upon release. These factors can contribute to recidivism and create a cycle of crime and punishment.
At the same time, it's important to consider that there is an important emotional component to jail sentences. They aren't meant to be strictly utilitarian. Crimes of a large enough scale deserve severe punishment in part because it is important for the victims and society to feel that justice was served.
People are vocalizing their lack of trust in the government to serve justice in part because cases where people whom they feel deserved more punishment didn't receive it and similarly with people whom they feel didn't deserve as much punishment as they got.
I'm not a psychologist, but my feeling is that US culture's over-emphasis on punishment as a means for victims to find closure is a disservice to crime victims and their families. Particularly for major crimes that result in long trials, it seems like many victims or their families are strung along with the hope that the outcome of the trial will finally make them emotionally whole, only to discover at the end that no amount of punishment will make them feel whole. Their time, effort, and anxiety put into following the trial would have been much better spent trying to quickly move on to integration and acceptance. Waiting for the trial to end delays the healing process by years.
I think the importance of punishment as a factor isn't just a US thing. I think every justice system gives some importance to it. Plus, the idea (IMO) isn't that it'll make them whole, I think they're usually pretty cognizant of the fact that it won't. It's somewhat like the idea of karma.
An example that comes to mind is that for all the layoffs happening lately in the tech industry, a common sentiment here on HN seems to be that CEOs are talking about taking responsibility but usually don't really face proportional negative consequences to demonstrate how they're doing that. Similarly with criminals, of course you can and should rehabilitate them to prevent re-offending, but if that's all you focus on, you kind of miss out on making them take responsibility for their actions.
Rust does have a feature called "panics" that is similar to exceptions in other languages. A panic in Rust is an unrecoverable error that can occur at runtime. Unlike exceptions, however, panics are not caught automatically by the language runtime. Instead, panics are propagated up the call stack until they reach a "catch point", where they can be handled by the programmer.
1. An exception is a recoverable error, that's the entire point, that's what catching an exception is.
2. Unlike Go's, rust's panics do not actually, universally, get "propagated up the call stack until they reach a "catch point", where they can be handled by the programmer". There's a compiler flag which can be "unwind" or "abort". In the former case (the default), panics can be caught and recovered from. In the latter case, the program gets hard-stopped on the spot.
> Unlike Go's, rust's panics do not actually, universally, get "propagated up the call stack until they reach a "catch point", where they can be handled by the programmer". There's a compiler flag which can be "unwind" or "abort". In the former case (the default), panics can be caught and recovered from. In the latter case, the program gets hard-stopped on the spot.
There are Rust libraries (e.g. salsa, used in rust-analyzer itself) that use unwinding internally for non-local control flow and won't work with unwinding disabled.
2. In default Rust config, unhandled panics end up unwinding the stack, calling destructors for everything, freeing resources, closing files and sockets, and printing an error message and possibly a stack trace. I think this qualifies as the language runtime automatically catching the exceptions.
3. For 99% of users, panic = unwind in rust. If you play with compiler flags, C doesn't have undefined behaviour because ubsan will abort programs if you compile with the right flags.
FastCGI and mod_php are both ways of running PHP on a web server, but they differ in how they achieve this.
FastCGI is a protocol that allows a web server to communicate with external programs that provide dynamic content, such as PHP scripts. In FastCGI, the web server launches an external program, called a FastCGI process manager, which is responsible for starting and managing a pool of long-running PHP processes. When a request for a PHP script comes in, the FastCGI process manager assigns one of these processes to handle the request, and the process generates the dynamic content and sends it back to the web server.
mod_php, on the other hand, is an Apache module that embeds the PHP interpreter directly into the Apache web server. This means that PHP scripts are executed directly within the Apache process, without the need for an external process manager.
While both FastCGI and mod_php are ways of running PHP on a web server, they differ in their implementation and how they handle requests for PHP scripts.
> Write an explanation for the user who posted the following comment: "Wait. Isn't fastcgi essentially the same as mod_php? IPC with a long-running process rather than forking and capturing stdout? What's the newer fastcgi php method that isn't mod_php?"
is:
> FastCGI and mod_php are similar in that they both use a long-running process to handle PHP requests, rather than creating a new process for each request. However, they differ in how they are implemented and how they interact with the web server.
FastCGI is a protocol that allows a web server to communicate with external programs, such as PHP, to handle dynamic content. It is typically used with web servers such as Apache or Nginx. In the case of PHP, the web server uses FastCGI to send PHP requests to a PHP-FPM (FastCGI Process Manager) process, which then executes the PHP code and returns the result to the web server. This allows the web server to handle multiple PHP requests simultaneously, improving performance.
On the other hand, mod_php is an Apache module that embeds the PHP interpreter directly into the Apache web server. This means that Apache can handle PHP requests itself, without the need for external programs or FastCGI.
One could argue that bikes on sidewalks are dangerous for pedestrians. For example, a person walking on the sidewalk may not be expecting a bike to be coming from behind or from the side, and can be startled or even injured if the bike is going too fast or if the rider is not paying attention. In addition, bikes on sidewalks can make it difficult for people with mobility issues or for those pushing strollers or using wheelchairs to navigate the sidewalk. It may be safer for both pedestrians and cyclists if bikes are restricted to designated bike lanes or roads.
I have mobility issues, and the chances of me dying on the road are amazingly larger than that of a pedestrian dying from me on my bike, no matter how reckless I could possibly be riding. If I have the choice between becoming roadkill or getting harassed by police, I will always choose the latter. It should be the job of the rider to yield to pedestrians the way cars must yield. If a rider isn't paying attention or going too fast for the situation, they are going to get hurt regardless of there being a pedestrian or any other obstacle. There is no danger to the motorist's safety when they mow down a cyclist. Source: I got mowed down by a police officer who buried his head in his laptop and slammed on the gas at the same time, veering uncontrollably. Luckily he wasn't injured. He had no clue he hit me until my bike was completely under his car. Somehow I managed to stay on his bumper and not go under.
This type of thinking, "One person might be frightened, so let's continue to make cyclists pay with their lives" is unfathomable. It's even more incomprehensible that it seems to come mostly from motorists wanting to dictate how all pedestrians 'shall obey' because the are second class citizens. "One could argue" all kinds of things without data and get nonsensical laws passed that affect other people and not themselves.
Furthermore, sidewalks already exist in vastly larger coverage of most cities, where bike lanes do not. Most places don't want to pay for bike lanes, and those that do rarely maintain them in the US. They have never run a street sweeper over the bike lanes where I live, and if they had, they would have hit the concrete spill that's been there for over 3 years and likely damage the street sweeper. It's outrageously dangerous if you don't know it is there because it is between the roadway and a turning lane, so if you get ejected in either direction you are possibly roadkill either way.
ChatGPT may be entertaining, but it still represents a potential threat to the job market. For example, many journalists and content creators are already being replaced by AI-powered tools. Automation is not just limited to physical labor; it's starting to encroach on creative work as well. ChatGPT is just one more tool in the arsenal of AI-driven automation, and the trend of replacing people with machines will only continue.
Journalism is unfortunately an area where people are too often not interested in paying for the truth. And I don’t mean that in a partisan way, I mean people aren’t willing to pay for it at all. It’s quite sad.
> Every sane developer uses either Jetbrains' product for JS, Python or Rust, or they use VS Code, which, after installing all plugins to reach the same productivity as with Jetbrains, becomes an IDE as well.
You seem to vastly overestimate the usage of IDEs with scripting languages. In my experience, the vast majority of developers working with scripting languages such as JavaScript, Python or Rust, still use plain text editors such as Vim or Sublime Text. They find these editors to be more convenient and faster than IDEs.
Even people who are on VS Code seem to be using only the built-in language support for scripting.
> In my experience, the vast majority of developers working with scripting languages such as JavaScript, Python or Rust, still use plain text editors such as Vim or Sublime Text.
Definitely not in my experience, most people I know use VSCode, which I wouldn't call a plain text editor (not necessarily an IDE either though). Most people will use the plugins for each language since those are auto-recommended when you open a new file in that language, such as Pylance for Python, and most people will click "install recommended plugins" and call it a day.
Vim users are few and far between in my experience, and Sublime Text even more so, most everyone has migrated to VSCode at this point that I know of.
I tend towards simple GUI text editors (Sublime and gedit), but I'm not really a developer. That said, I do use VSCode for anything that has to touch a git repository because screw trying to manage that on the command line. I wonder if that's what tends to push people towards an IDE if they weren't already using one.
Me too! Although I am playing with Sublime merge lately - it is pretty handy for creating branches off of specific commits, looking at diffs across branches etc.
I don’t know, I can count on one hand all the websites that still just sprinkle a bit of vanilla JS written in notepad.. JS frameworks absolutely need an IDE, so does python frameworks.
But surely, for advent of code scripting you don’t need it, but neither does Java.
The nice thing is being able to use the IDE or a simple text editor and be productive. There are times where a text editor is just right. There are times where the IDE is just right. And with Java... well, very rarely does the text editor fit.
There are still a lot of companies out there with significant control over their respective markets. Apple, for example, still has a huge control over the mobile device market and is not afraid to use it to their advantage. Companies like Amazon and Google also have significant control over their respective markets, particularly in the technology space.
Seems like we can never relax, always some company waiting for the chance to take over a space. Gotta stay vigilant.
Thank you for your reply and for taking the time to read our comments. We appreciate your perspective and the insight you have provided on the situation.
However, I must say that your message feels very confrontational and pointy, and dismissive of the legal aspects of the situation. While we understand that the emotional and artistic aspects are important, the legalities of the situation must also be considered and discussed.
I hope that you can understand our perspective and engage with us on the legal aspects of the situation as well.