tyler @ tyler @programming.dev

Posts

1

Comments

1,169

Joined

2 yr. ago

Except it has the opposite effect. Now people who have their lemmy configured to filter out the word “suicide” in posts get to see this post because there’s no way in hell they have it configured for every “redacted” version of the word.

It has to by because none of that originates from that account. I’ve literally never heard of this person and up until the Reddit exodus I was a chronically online person, spending like 17 hours a day online.

Who is Pete hegseth?

related https://kentcdodds.com/blog/aha-programming

What the other person said is good, but two of the simplest things to say are “this tech already existed and was in use for decades, and doesn’t require the massive energy waste that blockchain does” or “blockchain is designed around distrust in everyone. If you distrust everyone then why are you doing business with them?”

I haven’t talked to anybody that wants those things public, so yeah I can still claim that. Those things are public, but that does not mean people want them public. I have spent hundreds of hours debating people on blockchain tech, including as part of a previous job. Please do continue to try to refute me though.

Your example isn’t a blockchain, it’s just an example of an immutable database with a linked list structure. A blockchain has to have all three elements, else it’s just a previous technology that is already in use and has been for decades. Immutable databases already existed. Public ledgers already existed. Cryptographically hashed databases and audit tables already existed (CQRS with event sourcing is an example of this).

Your examples around affecting the physical world still are not accurate. If the blockchain has a contract in it that says “dispense a snack” then it’s completely dependent on what happens in the real world. Maybe the snack doesn’t dispense, maybe there isn’t a snack to dispense, maybe the user tricks the machine into thinking it didn’t dispense a snack so it dispenses two. There is no way for the blockchain to validate the results of reality. It’s just not possible. The entire premise of the blockchain is that you can remove authority, remove government, remove all this in between and just have users validate each other. It’s just not possible. It completely ignores reality.

Withholding. That’s the word I was looking for. I shouldn’t be on the internet seconds after I wake up.

Yeah which you can do with JSON as well. GitHub’s API does exactly that, providing links to all the rest of the resources so the client doesn’t need to “know anything”.

The author of the article completely conflates JSON with “JSON == Not-REST” which couldn’t be further from the truth (also calling json apis “RPC” is fucking hilarious to me. I can tell the author has never touched actual RPC). JSON was standardized on because it encoded the information that was in html in a much smaller format and allowed a backend server to communicate with any client, not just a browser (not that other clients can’t use html or xml, but they didn’t want to because they might not be documents). Dealing with xml is a nightmare. JSON made that better, and still allowed you to do HATEOS if you really wanted to.

Windows runs natively on Intel Macs in its own partition. It’s not a VM.

You should reduce your tax amount that your company is paying for you to the IRS. You can calculate it yourself and tell your company to modify it.

Or prefer to talk about what is affecting them, even if they do care about the situation in Russia, it’s pointless to talk about because the only way to affect it is through talking about people like trump.

So if a bear can get in, seems like a human probably could too

Let’s first state what the blockchain states it is:

• immutable
• public
• decentralized

Let’s say that you’re a user who wants to use the blockchain to manage something outside of the digital world with it. You create your product, and begin advertising it. No matter what this product is, it cannot affect the physical world. This means that immutability is a problem. The real world has mistakes. If a person sells their car, they need to hand over cash in the real world. How does that knowledge make it onto the chain? Same for a house, etc. Any object that has a transaction in the real world has to have an authority that manages whether that object has actually changed hands. So for the simplest use case, the chain has already failed.

Let’s talk about the next one: public. Nobody wants their transactions public. You don’t want votes to be public. The blockchain is not anonymous, no matter what anyone claims, because every record is tracked you can eventually deanonymize anyone if you wanted to. So this one is just a bald-faced lie and something not to be desired in any situation. The point here was to make it so that you can be decentralized and the public can be the ones to police others users of the chain, so let’s talk about how it’s fundamentally impossible for a chain to actually result in a decentralized world.

The blockchain is not actually decentralized. If you want to handle money in most countries on earth, you have regulatory bodies that govern everything about your operations. That means if you want to write an app like Shopify that someone can use to pay with bitcoin on a website, even if you are not selling something physical, you are still governed by a central body. Not only this, but once you want to sell something physical, you have to extract your money through a physical bank in the real world, which is also governed by the same regulatory bodies. This was immediately known as a problem in the early days of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, and it is still a problem today. This problem is not solvable as long as governments exist.

Funnily enough, each one of these elements does have use by itself! For example, distributed databases have been around for decades, and are the basis for much of the tech you use today. There are even immutable databases that are in use in many industries to keep an immutable record of what happened. AWS is sunsetting it now, but their QLDB was exactly that. CQRS with Event Sourcing is another implementation of the same idea. Finally, any government service or company could make records public if they want to. In fact many already do, for example home ownership records. If you own a house, that information is not private.

Putting something on the blockchain is no more than a move to make sure whomever owns that crypto gets more money out than they put in. If an actual use case existed for this tech, it would have been used decades ago when it was first invented (the blockchain was actually invented in the 80s by cryptographer David Chaum, decades before Satoshi invented Bitcoin and it was even discussed in Satoshi's whitepaper).

I can talk for hours about how each element of the blockchain is just either a grift to extract money from others OR a cynical, incorrect outtake on how the real world functions. If you want that, let me know.

This might get me to try KDE lol. I’ve used this feature on my Mac for years just when I get bored in meetings and I’ve always wanted it to grow to that size.

Roblox came out in 2006? On what platform?

I think they hadn't ever used git before, and according to at least one person in the linked issue, vs code might have auto initialized the git repository for the user.

No he asked for a discard after importing the project into VS Code. discard in git terms refers to git reset, not git clean. Even if he wanted to run a git reset then this version of VS Code would have run a git clean and deleted everything. Imagine he committed all 5000 files, but had a secret.json that he hadn't committed. He didn't add it to gitignore either. Running a git reset --hard will not delete this file, but the VS Code button did exactly that because it ran a git clean.

the problem is that VS Code ran git clean if you clicked yes, which is completely idiotic behavior. No other git client, text editor, or IDE on the planet does that.

discarding changes does not discard uncommitted new files. The VS Code button did a git clean which is completely unexpected. Git even refers to a git clean with completely different terminology.

git reset -> "Resets the index and working tree. Any changes to tracked files in the working tree since are discarded."

git clean -> "Cleans the working tree by recursively removing files that are not under version control, starting from the current directory.". This command also requires you to specify a force option to actually do something, else it quits with an error.

Note that git clean never once refers to discarding anything, and git reset never refers to removing untracked files. VS Code was doing an idiotic thing. Running git reset --hard AND git clean. There is absolutely no reason to be running git clean from an UI button ever. If you want to remove a file you can explicitly remove it.

Imagine that the button said "Discard all changes" and then it ran rm -rf --no-preserve-root /*. Would that make sense as a button? No. It definitely would not.