It’s incorrect that proprietary trading has negative externalities. It’s also exhausting trying to explain that to an audience that has fundamental misconceptions about economics, financial systems, and monetary systems, so I don’t think I have the energy today. Hopefully someone else will and add to this thread.
I never said it has negative externalities (whether it does or doesn't is a totally separate discussion), only that its positive externalities are certainly much less than some other fields that employ commensurately smart people, e.g. healthcare or climate change research.
what you're really paying for is a difference in manufacturing; the spec bump is just to make the very high price hurt less. $2k instead of $800.
they designed an elaborate process which theoretically guarantees that your phone was not tampered with at the factory or in transport. it was sort of a reaction to Bloomberg's "The Big Hack" article, which claimed Apple devices were compromised en masse at the factory in China by state actors (and the story was later retracted due to lack of evidence).
i do think it's a cool effort, even if the threat is only hypothetical. but it's a lot to pay unless you're operating under an extreme threat model.
It does and I’ve been hoping to see more discussion around best registrars from a domain security perspective. I looked into CSC (cscglobal.com) since it’s what a lot of big companies use, but it’s crazy expensive ($5K+/yr). Even worse, their contract is wild: no guarantee of registration/renewal, all fees non-refundable, they can hike prices anytime, liability capped at $5K, DNS is “as-is” with only credits for outages, and they can unmask WHOIS privacy at will. Basically you pay enterprise prices while they disclaim almost all responsibility.
ripgrep-all and recoll come to mind as projects that might be helpful to look at for supporting additional file types.
Fallinorg is great and something I’ve also thought about quite a bit. Local LLMs probably could enable lots of organizational workflows. I can’t wait to try what you have. Thanks for sharing and working on this problem.
But it's not intended for or good at (without forcing a square peg into a round hole) the sort of thing LFS and promisors are for, which is a public project with binary assets.
git-annex is really for (and shines at) a private backup solution where you'd like to have N copies of some data around on various storage devices, track the history of each copy, ensure that you have at least N copies etc.
Each repository gets a UUID, and each tracked file has a SHA-256 hash. There's a branch which has a timestamp and repo UUID to SHA-256 mapping, if you have 10 repos that file will have (at least) 10 entries.
You can "trust" different repositories to different degrees, e.g. if you're storing a file on both some RAID'd storage server, or an old portable HD you're keeping in a desk drawer.
This really doesn't scale for a public project. E.g. I have a repository that I back up my photos and videos in, that repository has ~700 commits, and ~6000 commits to the metadata "git-annex" branch, pretty close to a 1:10 ratio.
There's an exhaustive history of every file movement that's ever occurred on the 10 storage devices I've ever used for that repository. Now imagine doing all that on a project used by more than one person.
All other solutions to tracking large files along with a git repository forgo all this complexity in favor of basically saying "just get the rest where you cloned me from, they'll have it!".
> Any ideas why it isn’t more popular and more well known?
While git-annex works very well on Unix-style systems with Unix-style filesystems, it heavily depends on symbolic links, which do not exist on filesystems like exFAT, and are problematic on Windows (AFAIK, you have to be an administrator, or enable an obscure group policy). It has a degraded mode for these filesystems, but uses twice the disk space in that mode, and AFAIK loses some features.
It’s so disappointing to constantly see this type of evil envy driven nonsense posted on HN. Capitalism has delivered humanity unbelievable prosperity and improvements in living conditions.
Anyone finding themselves agreeing with ideas like 100% marginal taxes needs to look deep into their own soul and understand where it originates from and then go back and learn history and read authors like Hayek, Mises, and Sowell.
Sowell - “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”
And the worst part is that they don’t perceive the massive irony of posting these comments on this particular medium, the Internet, which was initially the product of a military-funded project of the most capitalistic country in history. A project which aimed to deliver a resilient communication network in case of all-out nuclear war!
Most of the people who comment like this most likely have lived since birth in a stable, western democracy with social and economic security and they don’t know anything else. They don’t know what living in a dictatorship is like, or under a fully corrupt government bureaucracy where only nepotism or favoritism gets you ahead. All they’ve known is their little, stable corner of the world, protected by the largest military and economic powerhouse in history, and they don’t appreciate it.
Hypocritically it is often extremely money focused people who put out opinions about taxing the greedy wealthy. Dressed up as caring for others but the underlying drive is selfish.
There’s not enough rich people with enough money/assets/wealth to actually make a difference and even worse nobody will be rich once you try take from them. That experiment has literally been tried dozens and dozens of times with 100% failure rate. Economies are organic organisms and your type of ideas as cyanide.
Please educate yourself and stop believing in fairy tales. Socialism is also extremely unethical and even evil from religious perspectives.
I’d be curious what educational system you went through that failed to teach the dark evil and catastrophic consequences of your 100% marginal tax rate type ideas.
> There’s not enough rich people with enough money/assets/wealth to actually make a difference
They could make a difference to some. Also consider the harm they do to the system through their politics. It's not just the wealth hoarding, it's the attacks on education and social safety nets.
I think in practice you want to take steps towards structural wealth equality. It's a problem when someone has their big ideas and step-functions a society into them. I have enough intellectual humility to admit that my conception of what policies and systems we need would most likely not work in practice. But changing a few things to be more socialist, measuring, then course correcting would be nice for once. Instead we get Capital and their purchased representation telling us what works and stepping towards what's good for them.
Also apologies but I won't read a 400 page book on your recommendation. But looking over the topics covered it seems to be about states that tried a command economy. To me a command economy is obviously foolish. How is a government, notorious a slow moving decision maker, going to replace the free market? As you said it's an organism. It's complicated with millions of actions happening in parallel. I want incentives to be changed - ideally with as few changes as possible.
> But changing a few things to be more socialist, measuring, then course correcting would be nice for once.
This is constantly happening actually and constantly failing.
> To me a command economy is obviously foolish.
And who exactly distributes or allocated your confiscated money from your 100% marginal tax rate?
> I want incentives to be changed - ideally with as few changes as possible.
Ask yourself why? is it because something is broken and you think this will fix it? that’s the classic empathy narrative which I guarantee is actually nothing but envy masquerading as empathy.
Nissan Leafs are I think the most DIY friendly EVs, certainly 1st generation, and also 2nd, but 3rd generation that is coming soon … not so much. Anyway 1st and 2nd can definitely be completely offline and there are significant online communities of tinkerers and even open source tools to interact with them.
I don’t get it, you have privacy at home or outside work, why when someone is paying you to work for them there is an expectation of privacy? You don’t see how that is extremely counterproductive for capitalism and economic activity?
Just don’t come to work right? You can have all the privacy you want? Or don’t visit the business if you are the customer.
Please help me understand what the logic and justification is to regulate and control security camera use within private enterprises (with the obvious exception of toilets and changing rooms etc)?
My employee can intrude on my privacy when he had probable cause but only then. Otherwise it is illegal to collect personal data. I need mutual trust to be productieve and evaluation of my work should always be upfront and transparant.
Otherwise I'm puzzled by your claim of productivity. Especially since we are stalking about labour productivity.
Notice that the top tier of the list is populated by countries with strict privacy laws.
> “There is a fundamental shift in how nations approach economic output. Strong social policies and strategic investment in worker well-being are creating more productive economies than traditional long-hour work cultures. The financial sector remains a key driver of high productivity, but it’s the emphasis on work-life balance that distinguishes the leading economies."
I work from home half of the time.
I have clear targets. Some I set for my team, some are set for me. If I reach or surpass my targets, why should I be spied on constantly?
This is about security cameras at work sites and businesses. What does this have to do with WFH?
However while we are on the topic I don’t see why governments should impose any restrictions on businesses using monitoring systems on their WFH technology systems as long as it is disclosed to the employees they may be monitored.
When you are paid by an employer your job is to do exactly what they want and try to do it well. Your relationship is voluntary (at will) between both parties and if you don’t like it then don’t work for them.
You were mentioning productivity as a reason for motoring your every move at work. Productivity is not a valid reason.
The reason the can't use video footage is because your image is biometric data.
There are other ways of monitoring at the workplace without being so privacy invasive.
My team is set free. We don't have work hours. Technically we have to work 3 hours a day, between 10:00 and 12:00 and between 13:00 and 14:00.
Without any monitoring they've reached their yearly target in may of this year.
So productivity is a falsehood. Nobody works harder when they're watched. People work hard when they are valued.
Fair performance reviews now and then do the job.
Then back on safety. I used to work in a bar years ago. It was in a busy part of the city and out of 30+ bars on the square I was the last to close.
I had 3 cameras and they were installed for my safety. Imagery was erased every morning and only used when needed after a bar fight or theft. That's fair use.
Never use biometric data lightly.
On a sidenote. I just don't get why people want to live in a surveillance state so much. You can't build a society without trust.
