> It's amusing to see these kind of statements from the decentralized no goverment/no authorities crowd
I see this meme and I don't get it
Why do you think this studio was a no government no authorities crowd?
I havent seen anything from Axie or its founders that suggested that, my assumption is that you see one word or one piece of technology that overlaps with the aspirations of completely different people that are anarchists, whats your assumption?
Then maybe just ignore those people and let the people running businesses just do what they need to do, like issue empty PR damage control statements like any hacked organization will do
Lets make fun of them just like we were making fun of Okta’s response over Lapsus
Isn't that company also trying to fulfill the same ideological goal? Their twitter even says "Freedom for gamers". Looks exactly the same type of bs to me.
Many organizations use blockchain technology to offload the need to develop the account model, user state management, and accounting, lowers overhead costs for some kinds of ventures as well as being trendy which is able to get an audience very quickly. This inherently comes with some aspects of less-centralization (in case you or someone passing by is allergic to the word "decentralization"), there isn't any ideology to adopt with that, its just a matter of reality. In Axie's case, gamers are able to resell assets they've acquired without the Axie platform or opinion of company. It fulfills a market interest and that's it. Many people are also making enough money to support themselves by playing/grinding/joining guilds, this is also an aspiration form of freedom.
> What other value is there in cryptocurrency over traditional money?
Collecting a bunch of it and using it like traditional money including earning more of it as well as converting it to traditional money simply because this market sector is hot and you can make a lot of money
Focus on what you can control, there is zero need to adopt ideology to use it, and there is zero need to project your thoughts on it to rationalize sticking with less lucrative things
Traditional money as in cash? Mailing cash to someone on the other side of the world is not ideal. Trusting PayPal or Stripe to not arbitrarily freeze your account because they think you’re making too much money too quickly is not ideal. Having to show ID to send or receive a money order is not ideal.
That doesn’t mean I don’t condone the government prosecuting thieves who steal crypto.
> Trusting PayPal or Stripe to not arbitrarily freeze your account because they think you’re making too much money too quickly is not ideal. Having to show ID to send or receive a money order is not ideal.
I kind of feel the same as you. I'm happy that Parler is gone but on the other hand I think that Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter are monopolies and should be broken up.
These are 4 different companies that compete with each other (Google Cloud vs. AWS and Facebook vs. Twitter, also although you didn't list it Apple vs. Google) in the spaces relevant to this conversation (cloud services, social media, and phone apps).
One can always list all the players in an industry and call that set "a monopoly and should be broken up". Or we can just take this for what it is, which is that some entity is so toxic that none of these companies (which compete with each other otherwise) want to touch it.
Google has monopoly on search, Amazon on online retail and to a lesser extent cloud hosting, Facebook on social media. Twitter on 140 character word dumps so that's maybe not at the same level bad as the others. Edit: Apple doesn't really have a monopoly on anything.
Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter are
monopolies and should be broken up.
Dominant market share != monopoly
For a monopoly, you need anticompetitive practices. Is Facebook unfairly preventing the success of other social networks? A good example of a monopoly was 90's era Microsoft, which prevented its OEMs from shipping competing operating systems.
Terminology aside, I completely agree with you that we need far, far more choice in the marketplace.
I agree. I see a lot of people pushing to give them special status or make them town squares and I think that is the exact opposite solution we need. We should take anti-monopoly action and foster competition in their respective markets instead.
> So... Type signature `Int -> Int -> Bool` can be used for a function that does any of the following things: manipulates strings, decodes JSON, or queries a database
It can definitely NOT query a database(as that would be an effect which would be visible in the type).
In their defence, rust is alright to spin up simple APIs or even complex backends. It wouldn't take me more than a few hours to write a small graphql api in rust.
If they decided to write an API in rust just because, chances are it's not anything important (I hope). From their post, it seems like lack of familiarity is the core issue.
There has been a movement in the Rust community to position it as good for backend web development. This is why there's been so much work on async, excitement about Actix, etc. It's not hugely surprising that this has given outsiders the impression that Rust might be a good choice for backend web development.
The reasons for this movement escape me. We already have many good options for backend web development. None of Rust's unique strengths offer any advantages for it. Focus on web has diverted effort from areas where Rust could really make a difference, like embedded, drivers, and desktop.
The best i can come up with is that a lot of people have come into Rust from other languages where web development is a big deal (eg Ruby), and it's just impossible for them to imagine that a language could be good and successful without winning at web development.
A family tree is an overloaded term. The tree of ancestry, which describes who beget whom, sure cannot be cyclical.
The graph of civil relationships can certainly contain cycles. If the relationship in question is "is a legal parent of", for example, then adopt your parent.
The opportunities for cycles multiply if both blood and legal relationships are taken into account.
This works only until the concepts are the reason the problem is being tackled. A family tree based only on genetic relationships is interesting to few people outside geneticists and doctors. Most people are interested in familial ties as they are culturally defined.
Yea, it’s also not the best example because Mia Farrow was not legally wed though Allen was in a long term relation and they had a child. So, I am not sure if it qualified as a common law marriage before their separation.
In an August 1992 interview with Time Magazine Allen said, “I am not Soon-Yi's father or stepfather”, adding, “I’ve never even lived with Mia. I've never in my entire life slept at Mia's apartment, and I never even used to go over there until my children came along seven years ago. I never had any family dinners over there. I was not a father to her adopted kids in any sense of the word.” Adding that Soon-Yi never treated him as a father figure and that he rarely spoke to her before the affair, Allen seemed to see few issues with their relationship.[196]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen
However, if your mapping out relationships in software without considering the timeline it looks like a circular relationship. Further, I am sure you can find cases that are actually incestuous.
In the remarks section: "IFR flt are not permitted to tkof fr Rwy 15 or apch and ldg on Rwy 33."
So depending on the wind they might not had the option to land IFR.
You can circle to land if the approach is only one direction. Basically shoot the approach to minimums. Tower will say, circle to land north/south and you fly a normalish pattern, lower to the other end of the runway.
Circle to land requires visibility, you need to keep the runway in sight during the whole maneuver. So that wouldn't really have helped them in this situation.
A properly enforced static type would not need to emit Maybe, because it would be impossible to set it to the wrong value in the first place.
Not to mention that to be truly useful a static type would need some sort of literal that would emit a compile-time error if the supplied init data was wrong.
In short, examples above do not demonstrate Haskell's ability to statically enforce rules like "string needs to end with a dot".
Now, you could make a type that always prepends a dot when asked for a string representation, which happens to enforce this specific constraint, but you cannot use a trick like this for most constraints (such as the second example of "only alpha characters").
The problem, as you hint at, is that Haskell lacks a literal
syntax for "strings that end with a dot". One could fake
this up with Template Haskell if one was so inclined. On
the other hand, the representations proposed are
representations of "strings that end with a dot" and
"alphanumeric strings", the dubious ergonomics (and utility)
I think (but cannot guarantee) there's nothing much stopping you writing template Haskell to construct valid values at compile time if you want. It's just that most of the time you're (or at least I am) happy to use "unsafe" functions because the verification is simple enough to do in your head, and the other 99% of the time I'm creating values it's from run-time data.
It's amusing to see these kind of statements from the decentralized no goverment/no authorities crowd. To quote RKL:
Well it's anarchy, fuck the cops Of course, how else, through peace. But when the looters come to kick your ass I bet you cry "Police!"