grapehut

It's often not that simple. As a concrete example, I think Golang made a giant mistake with 'nil interfaces' ( e.g. https://go.dev/tour/methods/12 ) which can lead to extremely confusing and weird code ( e.g. https://go.dev/play/p/Qk1g9tSwQcw ).

So let's assume there was wide spread consensus that it's a terrible idea and it should work like every other programming language. There is really no obvious way to simply "convert to the new syntax"? And trying to have "go with nil interfaces" library interact with "go with normal type system" would be it's own can of worms.

Like in this case, the only realistic path I could see would be you deprecate it, then you start warning, and then in like 10 years or something you fully remove it?

I'm not familiar with that area, but considering it's not coastal it seems hard to believe the water is simply wasted once it goes into the ground in the lower Colorado basin.

It depends a lot on where the farm is, how much they irrigate, and when they irrigate. But often something like >90% of the water goes back into the ground, where it will eventually make its way back into the aquifers and rivers.

It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow

I think it would require pretty exceptional circumstances to make any sense to try counter-sue.

Like in my case I have pretty conclusive proof that part of her allegation is a lie. And that makes her look sufficiently bad that she's wiling to drop the whole thing.

But if I now tried to sue her, she'd naturally have to revert to asserting her allegations were true in the first place. But only she made some mistakes when remembering the details (oh sorry, wrong event! Trauma!). And I believe I would look vindictive and aggressive, and my real concrete proof is that one part of her allegation is a lie.

For me, it's 10000x easier to just count my blessings than personally consider anything of the sort. I only once briefly entertained the idea just to tarnish her own reputation to the point she would never be able to falsely accuse anyone again.

You've made the wrong takeaway. I was falsely accused of sexual assault by a woman. It has nothing to do with gender. It definitely can cut both ways.

We had a gaming party at work on a Friday afternoon, and I happened to have recorded my games. Reviewing it, I found I did play against her (and 2 others) in a free-for all. But it was clear she just fabricated the events. Funnily enough while I was playing her, I didn't even know it was her (it was a woman I barely knew and only had spoken to a couple of times).

Anyway, presented with the actual recording she dropped the entire thing and yet managed to have absolutely zero personal or professional repercussions.

These stories leave a bad taste in my mouth. It hasn't yet gone to court, so the guys allegations could be really be anything from the God's honest truth all the way to a complete fabrication. Yet there is a huge amount of irreparable damage by public stories like this.

I was once personally on the receiving end of a complete false sexual harassment allegation from a coworker almost at random (someone I had almost no interactions with, ever). There wasn't even a sprinkle of truth in the whole thing. I was saved by pure dumb luck, where against all odds just happened to have irrefutable proof one of their claims was impossible which led to her dropping the whole thing. I'm still a bit jaded that there are absolutely zero repercussions of making false claims.

I guess I feel like "Innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty good model and running a story just amplifying one persons unproven claims kind of goes against that.

I think what's not discussed is that most of this water ends up back into the ground and eventually back into a river. In some ways it even helps regulate river flow. Perhaps one improvement could not not allowing irrigation during from 8am to 4pm or something to reduce the amount of evaporation

This is a particularly egregious case, I've never seen a fake domain slip through like that before.

However, I have reported dozens of phishing sites for the company I worked for. The phisher would simply buy ads for $BRANDNAME and create a convincingly similar site and phish users. I would report the website to "safebrowsing" and report the ad. Typically it would take 1 to 3 days for the website and/or ad to be removed, which would give them enough time to do countless damage. Then they would simply register a new domain, and repeat.

At some point the only thing you can do is outbid phishing sites for your own brandname?!

It's a shame google can not self-regulate such evil behavior, but it's clear that it should be illegal for google to allow people to buy ads on brandname searches.

It is brutally unfair to hire by one standard and then suddenly hold them to a higher one. And fairness aside, if you do not look through an anti-racist/anti-oppression lens you would destroy years of work of improving company diversity.

The issue is that it becomes necessary as marginalized candidates are given preferences during the hiring phase. So if the same privilege is not extended during layoffs it will unfairly impact them.

Reminds me of my story: I met a girl in Mexico and decided to quit my job and move in with her. Since I couldn't open a bank in Mexico, I decided I'd just wire the girl all my money. Except upon trying my bank (of America) froze my account and took around 3 months to unfreeze, of which time I had access to absolutely no money.

It's kind of why I find it funny in all the crypto threads watching people here idolize the current financial system. Yet at a whim or some internal AML flag they can effectively trash your life giving you effectively no recourse.

Probably because most of us have first hand experience with how well our elected officials are with spending our money

The large redemptions are what is causing them to be 0.1% off the peg...

Have multiple entities buy shares

Absolutely agree. The company I worked from had a persistent problem with someone stealing customer details by buying AdWords targeting our brandname with a fake phishing site. We would report it, 2-3 days later Google would take it down. Then the next day, they'd be back with a different phishing site. At what point is Google just complicit?

I think the far more worrying trend is trying to silence anyone with different political ideologies.

Like their handpicked example of a user discussing "'destroý' Islam". Note, they added the quotes around destroy. But the actual content is reasonably thoughtful discussion of appointed supreme court judges and only claims "to end radical islam".

The issue isn't funding, it's structurally dysfunctional organizations. But that's a much harder problem to solve than blaming lack of funding. I was involved with a certain tax collection agency's project that was a never-ending trainwreck that spent decades complaining about being underfunded. When they finally got the 10s of millions of dollars they said they needed, they used it to hire and train college grads RPG (a programming language, if you haven't heard of it) along with how to operate mainframes and other systems that haven't been touched since the 80s. Fast forward a couple years, and every single one of the dozen hires had either quit or moved onto something more glamorous. But meanwhile the maintenance burden had just doubled because of all the new systems written in RPG on a mainframes which they can't retain people on.

I think most of the government agencies problems has nothing to do with their budget, but how they run themselves.

That's not really a problem. You don't hash the entire video, but do something resembling a merkle tree. i.e. look at a torrent, they're identified by a hash but you can download and verify a random chunk

That's fair, but would you also rather people unemployed than working for less than a living wage as well?

I've conducted technical interviews for a FAANG company for several years, and been explicitly told to go easy on and inflate the scores of minorities. On one hand it makes sense as we're trying to hire minority groups on a greater ratio than they're coming out of college. On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me they retention rates a lot lower when often they're thrown into positions they would otherwise not be really qualified for.

Yeah, in reality it's not what happened. Exchanges don't instantly margin-call positions, they have to use time-outs and do it slowly (or there simply isn't going to be the liquidity).

So it's pretty easy to get the price of tether on a single exchange to momentarily hit $400, just blow through the order book. However no one is getting margin-called just yet, so the trick is to sustain that price, which means buying tether at $400 a piece. Unless you've got hundreds of millions of dollars to blow, it's simply not possible. And something as obvious as that, manual circuit breakers are going to be getting hit before they let margin calls cascade.

Generally spikes like that happen because of fat-finger mistakes that blow through the order book, and typically return to normal within seconds.

Tether is particularly easy to short because it's pegged to a dollar. That means there's no significant risk it'll become more valuable than a dollar.

Another good example, one of the the then top HN users by karma:

2015: "Most advantages of Bitcoin which matter are captured by, and improved upon by, a LAMP app which simply holds account balances."

2019: "I acknowledge that when Bitcoin was $17 I said it had no use case, should be worthless, and likely would be at some point in the future. No evidence has come up which would make me change my view. (Though my is it taking a while.)"

Third time if you include the bizarre Ayaan Hirsi Ali hit piece too.

I guess it's a product of actual-journalism not paying the bills.

I think a lot of it is just people not wanting to admit they were wrong. It's far easier to double down. I remember almost being convinced by patio11 that bitcoin was stupid and dumping it at like $30, but thankfully didn't. Now I get a bit of a kick out seeing him come out of the woodworks when ever bitcoin or tether hits a hiccup gloating how they were right!

No, it doesn't. Imagine there is 1 share, owned by A. He lends it to B. B now (short) sells it to C. Now from C's point of view, he owns a share. So he lends it to someone. That person then short sells it.

So you have 1 share, that's shorted twice. But it's impossible for A and C to both have their loan repaid, because there's only 1 physical share.

I am personally responsible for 100e1000 US dollar trade volume per day.

Taken with the above statement, >99.999% of all US dollar trade volume is fake. I guess USD must be a joke currency.