Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | intuitionist's comments login

Of course for this to make sense you have to have a notion of 0, which is traditionally taken to be the point at infinity (so negation is negating the y-coordinate). It’s been a while since my algebraic geometry classes but IIRC this is just a useful convention.

Here’s a blog post from CockroachDB that discusses their use of Antithesis, including some of the challenges and “rough edges”: https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/demonic-nondeterminism/


It’s not really plausible that the NYT tech guild would have controlled for factors that would make the pay gap appear smaller, because their incentive isn’t to be truth-seeking, but to attain a superior negotiating position.


Yeah, but I think this misses the point a bit. The fact that your true edge isn’t knowable wouldn’t be so bad except that if you’re betting full-Kelly and overestimate your edge even a little bit, your probability of ruin in the long run goes to 1. Whereas if you underbet, you’ll compound wealth at a little lower rate but won’t risk ruin.


Nitpick: big prime numbers are of course trivial to factor. Big composite numbers are much harder. Checking whether an unknown number is prime or composite is nontrivial but fairly fast.


Hah, yes. (Although that technically wasn't provably true pre-AKS primality test, which isn't that old.)


I think that would be an uphill battle. The money that flowed to Caroline looked like: a base salary of $200,000 a year, semiannual bonuses of up to $20 million, a de minimis equity stake in FTX, and no equity in Alameda. I don’t know what SBF’s salary or bonuses (if any) looked like, but he had a controlling stake in FTX, 90% of Alameda, and borrowed from his companies several times for hundreds of millions at a time. Caroline was nominally the CEO of Alameda but she clearly was not the one in charge of the corporate empire, and if she was masterminding the fraud she did a very poor job of monetizing it.

It’s also not strictly he-said/she-said; there were at least two other executives who knew what was going on, both of whom implicated Sam as the mastermind.


For whatever reason, the current US administration seems to have decided it’s better to keep Binance and Tether around than to bring down the full force of the law. The next administration is going to be more crypto-friendly. I don’t think this is going to happen.


I have noticed them go after the entities Tether uses as intermediaries like Silvergate, then Binance, then Tron, then $TON etc so they're fighting the good fight.

My guess is when Coinbase gets "hacked" there will be enough political pressure to clean house and enough Dems in power to do it. Fingers crossed that those hacked funds will still be insufficient to fill redemption requests because that's the only way the stablecoin goes under without seizure of reserves.


Yeah, if you can find one where there’s a more senior exec with more culpability who you can flip on. And once you’ve found that, you might as well become a whistleblower instead, which has considerable upside and much lower downside.


So collecting all those extra taxes would cover somewhere south of 25% of the budget deficit for 2021. You aren’t wrong, but the parent isn’t wrong either.


You don’t need to reverse time if you can deterministically reproduce everything that led up to the point of interest. (In practice we save a snapshot of your system at some intermediate point and replay from there.)


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: