Still: if someone tries to buy an order, the transaction is automatically accepted, and the seller can do nothing about it.
Don't tell me one can withdraw an order after it has been established that someone else is trying to buy it? That would be way too easy to abuse. "Oh, someone actually wants my stuff? Sorry, I just happened to change my mind."
Spoofing is really nuanced and analogies make it difficult. Usually spoofers will put orders in the back of the order book where they feel they can cancel them before anyone can realistically get to them. But they are in the order book, so they are "technically" at risk of being fulfilled.
A "real job" is something you do to get reliable income. More often than not, it implies working for someone else. "Real job" don't have to be interesting, fulfilling, or even productive. If yours is, great, but that is not their main function. Their main function is to get you to pay the bills.
Hence my issue with the qualifier: "real". "Real" implies something inherently good, or at least better than the alternative. It also implies the alternative isn't "real", meaning it has less or no value. Add enough confusion, and you get a moral imperative to work your ass off for a boss that doesn't care about you, instead of creating pieces of art.
This way of thinking would lead to a bleak world. We should say "real job" less often —if at all.
"Real jobs." If we can't value people who are chasing their dreams, then what is the point of working together as a society to accomplish things? If artists should be cogs in a machine somewhere, then what is the point that machine?
It's absurd to suggest that people should get 'real jobs.' Life is a real job, and we've all already got it.
In France there is a crime labelled "association de malfaiteurs" (criminal's gathering). Fantasizing about a crime is allowed. But actually laying out plans, watching the neighbourhood, or performing concrete steps towards the crime with the intent of actually performing it… well, that is forbidden.
Makes sense to me. Mere thoughts should never be forbidden, but acting on a criminal intent, even if the acts, taken independently, wouldn't be forbidden, is something else entirely. First, actions can be punished. Second, actions are actual evidence for the intent.
Not necessarily. Otherwise it would be impossible to prosecute someone for meticulously planning a terrorist action, who is only stopped when they are just about to purchase the materiel required to carry out the act. No action has tajen place - actual terrorism has not occurred, and there are no physical tools or similar present. But the intent (or Mens Rea, guilty mind) is there, so you can be prosecuted.
And, of coure, there are crimes of "Conspiracy to X" that involve merely the intent to commit a crime.
A crime requires the confluence of the required mens rea and the required actus reus; the former alone is not sufficient.
For the kind of plot you describe, prosecution would usually occur when there are multiple persons involved based on conspiracy charges, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (which can be a fairly minor act, but it still requires an act.)
And yet, people in the UK have certainly been prosecuted for looking up jihadi websites with the intent to download bomb-making instructions... Although, the actual crime may be posession of said information? It's hard to tell, particularly living in a country where 'glorifying terrorism' is now a crime - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006 - as is 'encouraging terrorism' too.
I bet the prosecutors are kicking themselves for not thinking of that one earlier, as well - they could have simply rocked up to certain pubs in Belfast and arrested and jailed everone singing IRA songs ;)
That extreme case may still be worth it, if the result (program + DSL implementation) is easier to maintain than the mainstream alternative (program in a general purpose language).
Besides, it wouldn't be that many DSLs. There are relatively few domains where performance is really critical. Cryptography, rendering, encoding/decoding… that's a few dozens at most, with global impact for each. If those DSL have any positive impact at all, they will be worth the cost a million times over.
Beware: optimising for speed and optimising for energy don't yield the same results.
If you want speed, you typically want to use your CPU as much as possible. If you want to save energy, you'll want to underclock your CPU. If we go all the way to hardware design, saving energy means going massively multicore, with simple, slow, in-order cores.
You can optimise both, to some extent. But there is a point where you have to chose one or the other.
> If you want to save energy, you'll want to underclock your CPU.
This is incorrect. To save energy, the strategy is to do your thing as quickly as possible, with maximum CPU clocks and enter power saving mode as soon as possible. Otherwise the leakage current in the CPU will consume more energy than can be saved by underclocking.
It may be counterintuitive but fast code consumes the least energy.
I insist: speed and energy savings are correlated to a point.
To. A. Point. Some instructions in your CPU may be faster, but slower alternative often consume less total energy (even taking everything into account —there have been experiments and power measurements). Even if it means your CPU is up a bit longer. Then there are considerations that save energy, but don't matter for speed at all, such as the width of integer operations: no need to go 32 bits wide or 64 bits wide, when no value exceeds 127.
Also, I'm not sure about current leakage exceeding the benefits of underclocking. Those benefits are massive. Lowering the frequency also means you can lower the voltage. In the talks I have seen, halving the speed of a core (and lowering the voltage accordingly) makes it dissipate about a fourth the power. Half the energy, considering everything takes twice the time. This of course ignores leakage, but I doubt it would counter such a strong effect.
Besides, with a phone running a number of background processes, I wonder how much power saving time you can get. Not to mention, the potential costs of switching in and out of CPU saving mode.
Of course you can't. But if leakage consume 25% of CPU power, then halving the frequency is still worth it. Leakage may be important, but that doesn't mean it dominates.
Now if as an app developer you have zero control over the CPU frequency, sure, the best strategy is probably to write your code to be as fast as possible. But if you're really big on battery life, someone will have control over CPU clocking or voltage. In which case race to sleep is no longer the only viable strategy.
You are assuming that working less hours means earning less money. An obvious enough assumption.
Well, that's false.
First, the actual mean work-week is not that high, once you take unemployment into account: some people are working their ass off, but many others either have precarious part-time jobs (fewer hours, but often no reliable schedule), or don't work at all. Reducing the official "full time" work-week would merely force the capitalists to re-allocate work a bit more equally. This will mean less unemployment, and less expensive unemployment insurance —which plays a big role in compensating for the loss of gross revenue.
Second, we could consider allocating less money to capitalists, and more to workers. The ratio used to be 60/40 in the 70s. Now it is more like 70/30, if not worse. Taking that ratio back can easily compensate for 20% cut in our working time.
Of course, such a change is impossible to initiate through individual action alone. You did capture the current conundrum of the isolated proletarian: work one's ass off, or don't earn enough. But there is a third alternative: rise up and change this rotten world.
Not easy. But as history has proven to us time and again, the world can change.
Hi. I'm no Marxist, but I am old enough to remember the world before President Reagan & Friends.
Back then, the US had a tax structure that meant that the 1%ers paid much more in income taxes (FWIW, the poor also paid less in FICA); government was better funded, and could hire more people to clean up some of society's loose ends.
I'm not a fan of "basic income", although some "welfare" may have a place, but there is a lot of infrastructure that goes into supporting a business friendly environment, as well as making the country a nicer or safer place to live.
Of course, the powers that be in this country don't want us to turn into some kind of socialist hell-hole like Germany or Sweden :-)
People are always more than willing to redistribute "other people's money".
It always makes me laugh when I see this sort of talk in places like Hacker News. This is a very privileged subculture. If the proletariat rises up, the "intelligentsia" of Silicon Valley will likely be on the chopping block.
Yes, the world can change. The trouble is that it's impossible reliably to predict what change will result from a given action. The other trouble is that it's impossible reliably to predict what action will result from a given action. People are like that, be it ever so easy for a systems-oriented thinker -- like Marx, or yourself, or for that matter myself -- to forget. (Like any bad habit, this is susceptible to self-discipline.)
The other other trouble is that the soi-disant "social sciences" aren't and cannot be, because controlled experiments are impossible. Historiography and inference are fine and valuable things, but inflicting one's conclusions on others is a project best approached with a maximum of trepidation.
And the final trouble, the really insuperable one, lies in the fact that true collective action, the seat and soul of theoretical socialism, is in practice impossible save on the smallest and meanest scale, such as the rough music of medieval Europe, or the lynchings of the postbellum American South. In a larger arena, such as that of political action, true collectivism runs contrary to the unified intent and direction necessary to survival; begin as it may, a political movement must grow a leader or die. It may, as many, achieve both; it cannot possibly achieve neither, for the same reason its individual members cannot achieve orbit unaided, no matter how high they jump.
No doubt the world can change. The Bolsheviks changed it, quite effectively. Did they make of it what they intended? Did they make of it a better world than they found it? Will you?
> Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out.
If he's right about the automation part (I think he is), and if we're as stupid as we were in the 1930s, then the class of people who do well is likely to be quite smaller than the class of people who lose out big time.
Automation is wonderful. Destroying jobs is amazing. For most jobs, anyway. The only awful thing about that is the loss of revenue. And the stigmatization of the unemployed.
With technology that destroys more jobs than it creates, we don't have many solutions. We could generalise the 4 days work-week. Then 3 days… Or we could try unconditional basic income. Both, maybe? Or, we can wait until we're all deep in the poo, such that we get an increasing number of violent uprisings, leading to revolutions or fascism. Again.
I wish more people saw this the way that you do. You're right. Destroying "work", that is no longer needed, benefits society. It's a widespread loss of income that causes everything to go to hell. The two don't need to be correlated.
I once searched for a catchy phrase to capture this. Something that could catch on even in a time where politician supposedly "fight unemployment". Something like "Systematic Annihilation of Unwanted Work".