Why would you ever do opts.URL instead of opts.FooService.URL or opts.BarService.URL? What does ambiguity and imprecision gain you here when you can just write out from which struct you want it from? I don't even know why opts.URL would compile, it's completely unstated that you're not grabbing it from opts but grabbing it from some other structure contained within opts. Shouldn't even compile IMO, but at least I found something I disagree with Go's designers on.
>This increasingly likely future is made all the more infuriating by the annoyances of the current reality of AI. The fact that AI is so presently inescapable despite how many glaring security-affecting flaws it causes, how much it propagates slop in the information commons, and how effectively it emboldens a particularly irksome brand of overconfidence in the VC world is preemptive insult to injury in the lead up a reality where AI will nevertheless control everything.
So basically: "yes, I know AI is actually completely and totally useless and a net negative on the world just like you say it is, but I can imagine that things will suddenly turn into the sci-fi ultraverse for no reason so therefore you're wrong."
How could you take what I said and conclude that I’m stating that AI is completely useless and a net negative? I bring those issues up to note that the rollout of AI systems have been mired in problems like all new technologies. However even current AI possesses enormous utility in many sectors, and productivity/efficiency gains due to capabilities of the best models, which have no signs of slowing their rate of improvement.
That you rushed to straw man my point so hyperbolically supports my view that this frequent insistence I see claiming that AI is a worthless scam despite all the evidence to the contrary is emotionally motivated.
This article has nothing to do with the inflationary or deflationary nature of the currency, this is a problem solely caused by the block size limit, which other cryptocurrencies are free from and don't worry about.
It has everything to do with the deflationary nature of the currency. Its stated so right in their potential solutions:
> Tail emission: stop halvings and allow infinite inflation
The reality that no one wants to talk about is that Bitcoin is screwed and there's no way out of it, because of bad fundamental design.
Increasing block size will only work to solve the problem of Bitcoin's Security Budget if it brings in more usage/transactions; but Bitcoin's adherence to its traditionalist values is what led to the creation of a billion other cryptocurrencies to solve this exact problem, they do solve it, and they experience significantly higher transaction volume as a result. There's no evidence that volume is going to come back to Bitcoin. On the contrary; volume is down on Bitcoin, significantly, the usage these days looks more like 2018/2019. Its not coming back.
It also doesn't help that crypto, in general, is a dying technology.
> Burning dormant coins (e.g., Satoshi’s)
The fact that this is suggested, even as the last possible solution, should scream volumes about where this project and Bitcoin is at. This possibility shouldn't even be on this list. Not only would it do all the things the article says it would do (violate property rights, incite riots); it wouldn't even solve the problem. It would just buy a few years of time.
But as long as the miners have to buy their mining equipment using inflationary US Dollars; they're screwed. The only thing that would keep it going is growth in the usage of the currency, but (1) all growth stops eventually, and (2) even if it didn't, Bitcoin seems designed from day one to inhibit its own growth, because it was designed by an idiot crypto-maxy anarchist teenager who made the predictable software engineer mistake of thinking skill in compsci makes you skilled at everything.
There are more inflationary emission schedules which are safer, and don't rely so much on transaction fees to subsidize mining. For example, look at the constant tail emission used by dogecoin and monero.
Every function is unsafe.
No references, only pointers.
No cargo, build with rustc directly.
No std, but libc is allowed.
Only Edition 2021.
All user structs and enums #[derive(Clone, Copy)].
Everything is pub by default."
I’m sure it had. It doesn’t mean it had equivalent influence. In many places people won’t name it in their top 10 cultural phenomena of Internet of that period even if they would remember it, which is far from guaranteed.
this might be conspirational thinking, but i don't think it's an accident that the site came out like this. yes, there's moderation, but the moderators are explicitly told to go easy on moderating racism[1]. it feels like once that kind of stuff isn't punished, it starts to snowball a change in the attitudes of the site as a whole.
that's not to say stringent moderation doesn't make a site less welcoming, though. it's about choosing what's the lesser evil to you, i guess.
>but the moderators are explicitly told to go easy on moderating racism[
What would be gained if they didn't "go easy on racism"? Would we all start singing kumbayah and love each other, hippy-style? Or would people be just as racist even more remote corners of the internet/world, and then slightly-left-of-center-minded individuals could pretend that all the world's problems were solved and it could continue for another 100 years?
Letting people with abhorrent beliefs assemble with one another and commiserate on the awful things they believe... I mean I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's responsible for our current historical moment, but it certainly isn't helping it. The primary disadvantage of believing terrible, anti-social things is you would be ejected from social groups, be them communal or familial. That's not to say that racism didn't exist before the internet of course, it absolutely did; but racism and sexism were both on society scale improving over time, because those beliefs would cost you: they would cost you spouses, they would cost you children, they would cost you friends, in extreme cases they would cost you jobs and potentially even open you up to legal trouble.
And it still does, but it's less effective, because various flavors of cretin now have online spaces where they can meet like-minded people and nurture those beliefs, and worse still, all of those spaces reward extremism as any social media site does: subtle, balanced views are not incentivized at all, and you get the most social attention for saying the most outrageous thing in the space. We all know this, like maybe you've never thought about it before, but I'd wager almost everyone on this board has had this experience over one thing or another, even benign nothing issues.
And all of that is before we even get to the subject of things like influencers peddling YouTube videos, TikToks, or whatever to amplify those beliefs for their own profit. Whether they "really believe" these things is irrelevant frankly; in either case, people who believe these things see people being paid to represent their (wrong) ideas which lends them legitimacy.
And now we just have little bespoke engines of radicalization humming away all over the internet in the little shadowy corners, whipping people up into a lather about whatever dumbass thing they googled way back about how they can't get a girlfriend or whatever, and there seem to be a lot of spree shootings now for some reason, totally disconnected I'm sure.
Like the problem with this Libertarian "as long as you're not hurting anyone" is that it leaves a wide open loophole in there about hurting yourself, and while in many cases hurting yourself doesn't lead to anyone being harmed apart from yourself, as I keep saying: No one is an island, if you harm yourself in certain ways, you are absolutely a risk to other people.
The totalizing idea that your beliefs and values get to be the ones guiding the moderation of every single conversation happening anywhere on the internet (and therefore, the world) is probably more authoritarian than 80% of the ideas informing people who post on /pol/.
> it feels like once that kind of stuff isn't punished, it starts to snowball a change in the attitudes of the site as a whole.
Considering the site has been around for over 20 years and people still call out and flame racism, I think this is an uncharitable and unfounded cynicism. I'm not sure declarative claims of 3rd order effects in a system so chaotic are capable of being accurate.
> You say this like the rationalist community and 4chan edgelords aren't two circles with an incredible amount of overlap.
They are not.
Rationalists are the crowd that would attract typical Bay Area tech yuppies. Which is something that 4chan seems to despise with passion and makes merciless fun on.
Just go on /g/ (the technology board) and see any mentions of bay area, rationalists, or tech companies/startups. If you believe there is a significant overlap, then they surely are hiding it really well there by mercilessly mocking everything related to any of those topics.
I think people, whether they know it or not, rightly realize that race is too simplistic of a way to mark people as good/bad or whatever so even in communities that would be fine with racism it's gonna catch a lot of shit for simply not being a good way to accomplish its goal.
You say potato, I say po-tat-o. You "market failure and waste", I say "taking advantage of local efficiencies and powering a global financial system". Did you miss the part where they share revenue with the energy company?
> The bitcoin mine now accounts for around 30% of the plant's revenue allowing them to keep the prices down for the local town.
No, I honestly went off on a rant without really digesting the article.
Also because I find myself in need of limiting my exposure to politics and doomscrolling.
I think I don't disagree with you, while being wary of how exactly systems could be challenged and improved.
I found myself really angry in the past about environmental problems and am mostly shutting myself off web discussions about such topics in order to not becoming angry and isolated in futility.
My comment above was another diversion from that stated goal, but I'm thankful for your reply.
Tone is important. You are insufferable. I am 21 years old and would also rather write C and hang around the "old conservatives" than be in a community of people who talk about others the way you do.
Let’s be clear about what I’m calling out. I prefer to keep technical discussions technical. Let’s talk about technical merits like performance, security, maintainability, ease of learning. All of these are valid parameters to judge a technology.
“I don’t like the way some people speak” is not a technical reason and has no place in a technical discussion. It’s especially meaningless because no one can possibly like the way every person in a group of millions speaks.
A person who eschews technical discussion in favour of tone policing is not a person whom I take seriously. If you want to hang out with and learn from such people I wish you luck. Your age doesn’t matter. A 20 year old can have their thinking ossified just as much as a 60 year old.
