I assume that the solution to this would be a modification of the cryptographic basis of Bitcoin. Is there any way at all to do that without leaving behind people who aren't available at the time of transfer? Like if Satoshi was in a coma and not dead, is there any way at all to harden Bitcoin against attacks that would leave his wallet accessible to him?
But those aesthetics stem from that need for fewer bugs, performance, maintainability. Identifying/defining code smell comes from experience of what does and doesn’t work.
> I wouldn't care so long as I wasn't expected to maintain it.
But, if you’re the one putting out that software, of course you will have to maintain it! When your users come back with a bug or a “this flow is too slow,” you will have to wade into the innards (at least until AI can do that without mistakes).
Some argue that her father’s editing was detrimental, that it removed some of her voice and her experience. I think there’s something to editing out the more… problematic parts of a pubescent child’s diary. I would have been mortified if my thoughts of that nature were published, and the censorship allowed the diary to reach a more broad audience in e.g. grade schools. But at the same time, I do understand the wish to see the full, authentic story.
I disagree. If you discover that a bug that makes an open source library unusable to you, after spending time on learning and using that library, and the authors close the bug as a wontfix, I think being annoyed is quite reasonable, even expected.
If that type of thing annoys you then you should restrict your use of open source projects to those backed by corporations with a paid support business model.
It's open source software. If you discover the bug, have written a failing test that demonstrates it, and a proposed solution to it, then maybe you can be annoyed when the authors close it as wontfix.
Otherwise OSS is pretty much as-is, where-is, with the exception of very widely used and corporately supported projects.
If the maintainer merely doesn't fix the bug, then yes. If they close the bug report so it gets lost and other contributors are discouraged from working on it, then no.
Closed reports are not lost, they are still searchable/linkable, they are just not in the list of work to do.
This is entirely up to the maintainer, who puts in the work and gives up their time/money to do so. If you want to be in charge on a given repo, put in the work and become a real contributor, if not accept the rules the maintainers choose.
Dupe reports are a signal all by themselves, that's really not harmful, nor does something being closed implied solved.
You shouldn't presume to know what is best for an open source maintainer of any given project - projects vary, reports vary in quality, and the job of maintenance is not an easy one.
I mean, no security is perfect, it's just trying to be "good enough" (where "good enough" varies by application). If you've ever downloaded and used a package using pip or npm and used it without poring over every line of code, you've opened yourself up to an attack. I will keep doing that for my personal projects, though.
I think the question is, how much risk is involved and how much do those mitigating methods reduce it? And with that, we can figure out what applications it is appropriate for.
To expand on this, a given power line can only take a set maximum current and voltage before it becomes a problem. DC can stay at this maximum voltage constantly, while AC spends time going to zero voltage and back, so it's delivering less power on the same line.
Maybe if by "same voltage" we mean DC voltage the same as AC peak voltage. When we talk about AC voltage we are referring to root-mean-square (RMS) voltage. It's kind of like saying the average, though for math reasons the average of an unbiased sine wave is 0. Anyhooo, 1 VRMS into a load will produce the same power as 1VDC. If AC delivered less power than DC at the same voltage then life would be very confusing.
That’s true, but my understanding is the main contributor is skin effect, since AC travels only on the surface of the wire, while DC uses the whole area, resulting in lower resistance loss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect)
this iirc is the smallest of 3 problems. the other 2 are skin effect (AC wires only store power on the outside of the wire) and capacitive effects (a write running parallel to the ground is a capacitor and AC current is equivalent to constantly charging and discharging the capacitor)
Also, if anything would have been Edison's revenge it would have been HVDC, where they're sending power long distances with DC. (But as you said, even there it wouldn't make a ton of sense, since they were arguing in a different era).
The two primary reasons to do that are to allow the intertie of two AC grids that are not otherwise synchronized, and to take advantage of "earth return" paths when necessary to double the capacity of the line. The latter you may need to consider just to make the line cost effective over an equivalent AC span.
Surely if it makes sense for the big players, they will do it, and then the benefits will trickle down to the rest? Like how Formula 1 technology will end up in consumer vehicles.
Having all been in high school, I think we can all agree that lack of trust is warranted. Not for every kid, but for enough of them that blanket rules make sense. We also don’t allow students to use the calculator app on their phone for tests, and instead make them buy the “old school technology fallback” version.
An MP3 player seems like a good compromise, and far cheaper than the phone they’re replacing.
It's the same strategy they used in 2024 to a great effect: if you are against the crypto industry we will attack you. Not support the other candidate, but just attack you.
The intention is to not waste money on supporting candidates, but to attack those that challenge the crypto industry.
It's a very unique strategy in US politics that has been deployed quite successfully at varying times (Bill Clinton, uber, airbnb). Now with the elites being so brazen about their opulence they're taking it to the extreme.
reply