scg

The 100 years isn't the issue here, nor Rolex in particular. Replace Rolex with a contemporary brand and dcolkitt's point stands even more clearly. There is nothing in the law that makes a distinction between a Rolex watch and some other brand that people may purchase hoping it will garner prestige someday through present-day marketing efforts. It would be absurd to make that distinction.

The salient point is many things may be purchased for "speculative profit you hope to make [...] reliant on the business", but that by itself doesn't make them securities according to the law, so it's just not the right test to use.

To the extent that the Rolex brand has a certain inertia that will propel it further even after the company ceases to exist, that inertia can be attributed to company's previous marketing efforts.

Indeed, the brand may retain value for some time even if the company goes out of business, perhaps even for a very long time. Nevertheless, that doesn't negate the fact that ongoing marketing efforts can amplify the brand's value and momentum, and the brand's inertia will be even stronger should the company cease to exist.

Another way to look at this is to put yourself in the shoes of a prospective buyer in 1923. Wouldn't you say in that situation you rely on the company's continuing marketing efforts to further the value of the brand? At what point in the last 100 years do you stop relying on the company's efforts?

Also, Rolex can easily destroy brand value with ill-considered promotional campaigns, so you rely on the company to not mess it up.

  He spends much time labeling and psychoanalyzing the people who disagree with him

  [...]

  But in the last few years, as his firm a16z took in $7.6B of capital to make a disastrous bet on “Web3”, while charging LPs an estimated $1B in management fees for the privilege, he’s been putting out a stream of disingenuous and logically-invalid arguments.

  For those who didn’t follow Marc’s Web3 debacle, I’ve kept the receipts:

Criticizing pmarca for not engaging with the core of the argument, while simultaneously bringing up "receipts" for unrelated criticisms is odd. This behavior is more consistent with someone who has an axe to grind than with someone who is offended by 'poor “sportsmanship”' in discourse.

  Let’s start with a passage from the essay where Marc is 100% objectively wrong, as a matter of pure logic.
  [...]
  If you argue that AI won’t kill humanity, while simultaneously arguing that “AI will kill humanity” is a category error, your logic is mistaken. Period. End of story.

This isn't the airtight argument the author thinks it is.

It is logically consistent to dismiss an "AI doomer" claim by positing it's based on a category error. That doesn't mean you argue for the exact logical negation of the claims, so you don't automatically grant that it wasn't a category error to begin with.

  Here are examples of what actual category errors look like:
  - “The number two is blue.”

There is a broader, and arguably more common, definition for "category mistake". A statement can be a "category mistake" or not depending on the context. Quoting from <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-mistakes/>:

  For example, an utterance of ‘That is green’ seems infelicitous in a context where the demonstrative refers (or appears to refer) to the number two, but entirely innocuous in a context in which it refers to a pen.

Can you point to a single YC crypto / "cryptocurrency-adjacent" company that is a "grift"?

Why?

Does it pick up context from previous cells like Wolfram’s Chat Notebooks?

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/06/introducing-chat...

Mirror: https://web.archive.org/web/20230108202435/https://codingnes...

As a human programmer I didn't quite understand the problem statement until I read the whole article and the tests.

I believe the goal is to find a path with the fewest possible "fire" cells and the minimum cost as a tie breaker. The cost of a path is the sum of its cells' cost and it can't be greater than 5.

If I understood the assignment correctly, I don't think the problem statement is equivalent to what's included in the prompt. Specifically, the prompt doesn't clarify what happens if you have to cross through multiple "fire" cells.

> Fire tiles cost 1 point to move through, but they should avoid pathing through them even if it means taking a longer path to their destination (provided the path is still within their limited movement range)

> a lot of people are starting to wonder if it's ethical to work in technology at all

Can you share some evidence to support this claim? Who thinks we're better off addressing climate change, etc. with less technology?

Is this map showing expected delivery times based on realized deliveries, or based on intended schedules?

I wonder what the p95 latencies looks like, along with failure rates, and most challenging ZIP Codes, volumes, etc. Can USPS even log all this data?

test

Runloop | Founding Engineer | Remote | Full-Time | https://runloop.xyz/jobs

Runloop builds simulation environments for DeFi and trains autonomous agents to provide liquidity, manage risk, and discover trading opportunities at scale.

We are looking for a founding engineer to help us develop the core tech. You get to work on exciting problems spanning low-level, high-performance DeFi simulations and training reinforcement learning agents.

Our team comes from Google Brain, Coinbase, Twitter, Yale, Stanford, etc.; we built successful startups before. Our investors are a16z, DCG, plus a dozen experts in our industry.

Apply here: https://jobs.wrkhq.com/runloop/22485

Congratulations! This is really well done!

Besides the eng feat of fitting everything in 13kb, this demo captures the essence Quake 1 gameplay and aesthetics really well. Everything is different - characters, textures, weapons, etc. - but somehow it still feels very much like Quake 1.

> reign in and regulate

Crypto is heavily regulated at least in the US, Western Europe and huge swaths of Asia. Exchanging to/from fiat can only be done through entities subject to KYC, AML laws, and OFAC regulations. Additional regulations are coming - see "travel rule".

Bitcoin is infinitely more traceable than cash. Here's one of the most popular software routinely used by law enforcement to trace crypto payments: https://www.chainalysis.com/. Tumblers / mixers, etc. have only limited cloaking power.

The same shortsighted argument could've been done at various times against cryptography, against torrents, against remote access, against the internet, and against using computers (inherently hackable). Now it's crypto payments, and tomorrow it's going to be something else because criminals use technology to scale as much as everyone else.

Crypto networks are especially good at cross-border payments, and they are hard to censor by a state actor. Indeed, these were among the design constraints of Bitcoin. If one wishes to argue that such a technology shouldn't exist, good luck with that; it exists, has legitimate use cases, and banning outright it is shortsighted in the same way opposing cryptography is shortsighted.

Related: "Learning-based Video Motion Magnification" in PyTorch. (https://people.csail.mit.edu/tiam/deepmag/)

Motion magnification" means you pick up and amplify small motions so they're easier to see. It's like a microscope for motion.

Example videos reproducing these results:

https://twitter.com/cgst/status/1210691577078636544

Please take care of yourself. It's not your fault.

It's basically Makefile + Dockerfile combined. That's useful because you can get rid of ad-hoc shell scripts, and builds are deterministic.

Is there a browser-based version?

> it wasn't possible to buy ETH direct until ~2017

Coinbase added ETH support in 2016: https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-adds-support-for-ethereum...

I'm biased but I recommend this 100%. I've been at Coinbase for 9 months; people here are kind, supportive and I feel like I'm learning a lot every day.