HackerTrans
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

tomtomtom777

no profile record

コメント

tomtomtom777
·先月·議論
Going from 720 average to 100,000s peak still doesn't sound realistic. especially as they operate in many timezones.
tomtomtom777
·先月·議論
100k(s) orders per minute is several orders of magnitude more than realistic. Amazon does 20k orders per minute.

Instacart doesn't need "100,000s of grocery delivery orders per minute".

There must be some 0s added for the sake of the story.
tomtomtom777
·2 か月前·議論
Please use HTTPS.

I use HTTPS only. I don't think HTTP is acceptable for anyone let alone a technical blog post. It takes a few minutes, and it prevents me and all your visitors from getting all kinds of MITM injections.

Thanks.
tomtomtom777
·2 か月前·議論
The spec states:

> The coordinate reference system for all GeoJSON coordinates is a geographic coordinate reference system, using the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) [WGS84] datum, with longitude and latitude units of decimal degrees.

So that seems to be a misuse of the format. Using a geojson library for this may get you into trouble with ranges or antimeridian cutting.
tomtomtom777
·2 か月前·議論
Can you explain what the "No Gender" extension is about and why it is a must?
tomtomtom777
·2 か月前·議論
This proposal is really harmed by the name.

There is a reason none the existing methods use the word "TRACK". Although connecting home can be used for tracking it doesn't have to be.

If a tool uses connecting home for telemetry, implementing "DO_NOT_TRACK" would suggest it does track its users without the setting, even if it may not.

Rename it this to "DO_NOT_CONNECT_HOME" and it may be a useful standard.
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
At 3x5 it states:

> The "M", "W" and "Q" suffer, but it's still got a distinct O and zero.

The Q is weird; I would think it makes more sense to draw it as a zero with the bottom right set.
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
I am responding to someone that used OIL presumably because it is - although incorrect - more clear as an example for those that are not into trading.
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
The fact that is used to make profit doesn't absolve us from any moral judgement. Buying stocks of a company improves its financial position allowing it to grow.

Would you buy stocks of ClusterBombsInc over CureForCancerInc because it has slightly better prospects?
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
> how about short-selling of stocks, isn't it the same thing?

Yes. That's why it's illegal to short-sell your stocks just before you announce that your company is broke.

There are no such regulations when betting on a bomb dropping on a boat.
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
Wow. I am not sure how to respond to this as you seem to have a completely different mindset. You mean to say it is "proven" not to be a solid strategy as in not maximizing profit?

Surely, you acknowledge that funding something is a rather direct way of actively supporting it. It is your money and your choice of what you choose to invest it in, and thus how you choose to shape the future. If you buy OIL to make money, you are still responsible for the additional investment made in oil, and are still shaping the future, whether you like it or not.
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
Actually yes. I put my money in things I would like to see shape the future, which I think is what investment should be about: shaping the future.

But disregarding this admittedly niche attitude; it's not the same thing. If you're opening bets on the ships being bombed before a certain date, you're opening incentives for people to do so. Although buying OIL or Palantir is morally questionable, it does not create such direct incentives.
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
You don't have to imagine some giant conspiracy. Fact is, that everyone can make a bet, and there are a lot of people with knowledge and influence in the political decisions made.

In sports, at least the outcome is only effected by the sportsmen. Here, who knows which and how many people have inside knowledge and influence that they can use that to their financial advantage?
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
Well, it would be if everyone betting wouldn't have an influence on the outcome. That's "wisdom of the crowds". But what if the people putting money on the Strait being closed are the same that close them? Surely, that's no longer the wisdom of the crowds at play. Just perverse incentives.
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
This is a nice overview, but please remove the PolyMarket indicator. It is an obscene prediction mechanism as it creates horrible financial incentives to a war situation. Its degenerate effects have been featured here before. [1]

Let's not condone "measurements" that are effectively ways for people to gain money on important political decisions, affecting the lives of many people.

(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47397822
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
2045 A=~1.0 seems way off. CRQC is still a theoretical construct with hurdles to overcome. Yes, there is a significant risk that it will exist somewhere in the next decades, but there is also still a significant chance that it will be shown to be practically impossible.
tomtomtom777
·3 か月前·議論
> The Bitcoin core devs can issue a word-of-god statement stating that they'll roll back the chain to before the attack, and all is well. Then they'll change the cryptography.

That doesn't work, because once the signature scheme has been broken, nobody can prove that their coins are theirs. No roll back or word-of-god would help.

The only way to make bitcoin quantum-safe, is to introduce a quantum safe signature scheme, to encourage everyone to move their coins and to somehow accept that those who don't are not longer in control of their coins.
tomtomtom777
·4 か月前·議論
"It is only the unimaginative who ever invents. The true artist is known by the use he makes of what he annexes. And he annexes everything."

- Oscar Wilde
tomtomtom777
·4 か月前·議論
I understand that this is a good idea but it does feel really weird. Add a min-release-age to see if anyone who doesn't gets bitten.

Next up, we're going to advise a minimum-release-age of 14 days, cause most other projects use 7 days.
tomtomtom777
·4 か月前·議論
I think that's horribly fatalistic perspective.

Yes, humans can be bad. But humans can change. Let's not start accepting bad stuff as not so bad, simply because it is "just human behavior".