This is pseudoscience at best. Multiple factors feed into a person's gait, from hereditary factors to physical differences in structure and growth patterns. It's going to be very difficult to eliminate all confounding variables, some of which include diet and local water quality. Best to completely disregard such "studies".
No, that's not how code review works. Getting inside the mind of the developer, understanding how they thought about the fix, is critical to the review process.
If an actual developer wrote this code and submitted it willingly, it would either constitute malice, an attempt to sabotage the codebase or inject a trojan, or stupidity, for failing to understand the purpose of the error message. With an LLM we mostly have stupidity. Flagging it as such reveals the source of the stupidity, as LLMs do not actually understand anything.
The central smart contract is on the blockchain and can only be used if the internet is up. That's why you haven't solved anything here.
Your proposal is that since Alice and Bob can't communicate in real-time, either directly or indirectly, Alice does an interaction with a smart contract to lock some value and then Bob does an interaction with the same smart contract to unlock some value.
We can view the smart contract as some shared algorithm between Alice and Bob (if they are running their own nodes) or we can view it as something outside of them both (perhaps they are RPC customers of Infura). If Alice and Bob are running their own nodes, however those nodes manage to communicate with each other is a way they could just send the message to each other and not need a blockchain. And if they're both able to communicate with Infura, they could also swap Infura for Gmail and send each other a message the normal way (or if they can really only reach Infura for some reason, they can put their messages on the blockchain). But we are talking about designing systems that can work in scenarios where direct communication like this is impossible, and messages have to be forwarded hop-by-hop over a span of hours. You can't design a system for slow networking, that assumes the existence of a separate fast network just to run the payment system.
All nodes running a blockchain have to be in low-latency contact with each other. If you try to run Bitcoin in a network with multi-hour latency, you'll never reach consensus on which blocks are in the chain. You'll be hard-forking all over the place. You'd have to slow it down to, like, one block per week, but then it's far too slow to be useful for payments.
If a blockchain exists in such an environment, it exists on a tightly-coupled cluster of nearby nodes. And that cluster is pretty much the same as a single central node, from the perspective of the network. You don't gain anything by making it a cluster (except for redundancy, as usual).
More familiar than you can imagine. The fact that you think smart contracts are what are needed to solve a decentralized communications problem suggests that you've learnt a new hammer and everything now looks like a nail to you.
Please check the parent comment which I replied to, this is a solution to “how to implement a robust micropayment system” in this context, not how to solve a “decentralized communications problem”.
Well, there's the "Given the intended use-case, that would not work." part which very much means the payment system is in the context of the intended use case.
>I like the idea, I just don't know how to implement a robust micropayment system that does not require a lot of messages back and forth for a transaction. Given the intended use-case, that would not work.
My reply is: here is the system that will work. Very simple. Keep in mind that multiple use cases and applications were mentioned, so I don’t see an issue for such an economic model to support at least some of the use cases.
It doesn't work for this use case, as they tried to explain, as it breaks the entire point of the system as a messaging platform that doesn't require the internet.
Why would anyone agree to participate in interviews then? Do we then force developers to conduct interviews? If so, which ones? The superstars or the ones on PIP? You can see where this is going..
Nope. In my opinion Wild West in software is much preferred model. If one wants to create software and sell it there should be no barriers. It is one of the the very few fields that give chance to simple people with no money to break out and live decent life.
Tbh I think it depends on the domain you are coding for. The field is so diverse across many different parts of the economy. E-Commerce web app sure go for your life -> software for controlling some life support system... yeah maybe I want someone with qualifications and audited standards thanks.
Life support and controls system should absolutely have a high standard, but even E-Commerce should have a decent bar. If you're handling my money I expect you to be an adult.
Sure. But audits/processes only catch up to a point. In the end the buck stops with a professional. That's what most "professions" are. They aren't just a service -> they are an accreditation with some recourse which gives them prestige/social status/etc if they have years of experience (i.e. despite the risk imposed on them as a professional they have survived/thrived).
Its not common that people in our industry don't have bachelor degrees anymore. Its also not an industry where I routinely find the majority of people come from lower economic backgrounds etc.
I think a fair compromise would be not to require specific degrees to test, but rather a service fee (which could be sponsored) but I think a similar rigorous standards based exam would do wonders for our industry, even if it trims who can enter it on the margins
>"Its not common that people in our industry don't have bachelor degrees anymore. Its also not an industry where I routinely find the majority of people come from lower economic backgrounds etc."
It does not matter what you "routinely find". Live and let live. Person has an inherent right to make living however they see fit unless it actively harms others.
If you are so concerned about degrees why not to start with the one of a "decent human" and require it from politicians. Those fuckers affect us way more than any software and and mostly walk free no matter haw badly they fuck someone's life
Your attitude is completely off-base. Would you get treated by a doctor who was not recognized by the AMA? Would you hire a lawyer who was not called to the bar, or an accountant who was not chartered or equivalent?
Yet somehow a high school education is sufficient to write software for a 4000 lbs vehicle moving at 60 mph.
>"Yet somehow a high school education is sufficient to write software for a 4000 lbs vehicle moving at 60 mph."
Cut the BS please. Safety critical software gets audited and other measures are taken to insure it stays safe to a degree. However if one wants to write software for let's say music synthesizer the only thing that matter is the person ability. In this case I would look for experience, list of completed projects and other relevant info. I would not give a rat's ass about their diploma. Some of the best / successful software was often created by domain experts who learned how to program.
because our industry would improve massively if we actually removed a barrier to allowing standardized licensure
I also never said it should be held behind a degree, instead I said a fee, which could be sponsored. No degree required, though one certainly would help I imagine.
We live in a society, and we should think beyond the individual in terms of benefits. This would be a big win for society.
those generic screener questions aren't technology specific. Data structures, algorithms, system design (the top 3 that show up in interviews), none of which are technology specific.
Throw in best practices like TDD, code security, and architectural patterns and I think you could hit all of the most common non technology specific domains that cover it
The first and best place to build a permanent station is the moon. The wheel could spin on the surface at a very low rpm given the Moon's existing gravity, giving us the launchpad need to build and deploy a permanent space station.
Until we settle on the moon, our forays into space will always be limited by pesky things such as Earth's gravity and atmosphere.
Wait would this even work? Can you add moon gravity to centrifugal space station gravity? I can’t imagine a setup where the wheel is always pushing inhabitants out in such a way that they are moved towards the center of the moon.
Yes, you add accelerations as vectors. Say, a centrifugal ring flatly lays on the Moon surface and rotates (around the axis of ring symmetry perpendicular to the ring plane) so that the artificial gravity on the centrifuge is about Earth. Moon gravity, about 1.42 m/s^2 , adds perpendicularly to that, so the total gravity is still about the Earth one. The level surface on the centrifuge is slightly tilted away from local vertical, but in essence you just added Moon gravity, vectorally, to the rotational acceleration.
I am fully in favor of doing things on the moon, but have a theory that its relative convenience is actually detrimental. Without going into a lengthy spiel, convenience means low commitment, which translates into a high likelyhood of projects getting the plug pulled.
Elsewhere, the hurdles to clear to get something started are higher, but once you’re out there it’s a lot less justifiable to reverse course.
It could very well be true that it’s necessary to settle the Moon before doing anything else, though, which could spell bad news for any endeavor involving crewed spaceflight. We might end up with a series of false starts on the Moon (due to events like funding getting pulled as a result of changing politcal winds) that end up going nowhere which then puts crewed spaceflight in a state where it's stuck in LEO perpetually.
> Since 1) and 2) are (again, from the perspective of Isreal's government) undesirable, and 3) has stopped working, 4) seems to be their current strategy.
The Israeli govt and people would be very supportive of (2). After all, there are more Arabs living in Israel than in Palestine. The Palestineans, on the other hand, overwhelmingly reject this option.
reply