mosheroperandi
mosheroperandi on Hacker News
I was swatting lots of flies last week, and I was doing my own announcing. A kill counter and automatic UT announcer was all I wanted out my swatter in that moment.
The different volumes could reflect that folks have started to lose trust in Tether vs USDC, and so Tether is used as a big liquidity pool to move between different positions, but no one's endeavoring to hold big Tether positions for longer than necessary. Whereas USDC might be the preferred parking place when folks actually want to spend some time out of market without fully leaving the casino.
I don't know if that's actually true.
Post-communist Albania offers a interesting parable:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/jarvis.ht...Various pyramid-like enterprises sprung up in the new, underregulated markets. At their peak, the schemes were worth upwards of half Albania's GDP, were participated in by 1/3 to 1/2 of the population, and enjoyed support from the government.
For a time, all investors enjoyed good interest payments. But all the popular adoption and shared belief in value couldn't fix their underlying insolvency and the ensuing collapse once new deposits dried up.
Whatever quantifiable value, if any, Bitcoin produces for being a BFT ledger is not nearly enough to offset the constant, massive value drag require to pay for mining costs. That x% of the world's wealth is currently tied up in it is not proof against its fundamental insolvency.
But you have to grapple with the counterfactual. The status quo of not building some of these projects is we keep pumping tons of coal soot and gas fumes into the air. We are currently on course to destroy the ecosystem of the entire planet.
I won't pretend that I know these projects are well-sited or they couldn't easily be done in a better way to lessen their impact. But, you can't use "it has a new harm" as an a priori veto of changes when the status quo is so deeply, deeply harmful.
Sometimes. The reason he voted against is because he's so aggressively trying to rearchitect the past several decades of 4th amendment jurisprudence that the defendant would have needed to include a very different set of arguments to meet his standards. Gorsuch states that there's a good chance these records are "papers" that the defendant has at least some property interest in, but that the defendant failed to properly raise this argument and therefore waved it by default (so Gorsuch must decide against). He then basically ends with a plea for future defendants to include a set of arguments based on his preferred property-centric regime so he can decide in their favor.
Yeah, there's some magical thinking that it'll take several decades to fully roll out "yesterday's technology", but somehow, by the time hyperloop technology is production ready, it won't take several more decades to actually get one built.
This explains some things. I was sort of surprised he had managed to defend a thesis after trying to follow his argument in the piece in question. I don't expect thesis level work from a forum post, but for something with so much work put into citations and footnoting, it's so bad at linking its evidence to its arguments and its arguments to its conclusions (or even deciding, what, in fact, it's central thesis is). For what he deems to be such a hostile audience, it's very poor piece of persuasive writing.
I think it's the case as depicted in the first radar image, UAL1 turned 90-ish of degrees right on the exit from the taxi-way, and the other three lined up. It could be the angle of the camera is such that it's an illusion they're all in a straight line. That probably still gives them plenty enough view out the side of cockpit to see that the plane they're expecting is heading behind them and not in front of them where it should be.
I think the orientations in the subsequent screens where UAL-1 looks turned around are probably a case of the radar over-extrapolating from its heading from the turn and then not being able to tell its heading while it's parked.
Yeah, the 3 video frames in that report are matched to transmissions the timestamps. Unless the angle is deceiving, you can sorta visually extrapolate from the descent of the first two at :01 and :04, that 6 seconds later, when the go-around was give at :10, they would have been on the ground had they not pulled up.
You wouldn't be the first person to confuse R for L.
Yeah, but once you decide that the leftmost runway you see (with the dark void on its left) is the left runway, then obviously the parallel strip of lights to the right of it is the right runway. Sure, the lights look odd, and your gut's giving off this feeling, but you see, that's the left runway, and I don't see the right runway anywhere else, so this must be the...
They probably got stuck in several cycles of that before the contrary evidence was overwhelming enough to break them out of their off-by-one mental model.
From the current report (
https://ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA17IA148.aspx):
The NTSB has obtained a security camera video from SFO of the incident approach that will be released along with the other factual information when the public docket for this incident is opened in the next several months.
Technically, Markus "Notch" Persson would need to write under a new pseudonym
There still is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVBI remember having a cheap Timex in the mid 2000s that synced off this. I found it a great improvement to the watch experience; my synchronization source of choice before that was a wall clock also powered off that same signal. I also have vague memories of a phone number you could call to get the accurate time.