> I would stare longingly into the void, wondering if I can ever work another python project after having experienced uv, ruff, and ty.

You think you're disagreeing with me, but you're agreeing. To wit: The original post is silly, because ty is beta quality and Ruff isn't stable yet either. Your words.

These are just tools, Pylint included. Use them, don't use then, make them your whole personality to the point that you feel compelled to defend them when someone on the Internet points out their flaws. Whatever churns your butter.

It can be a rough gig.

Cyberstarts is the most blatant offender, but to be fair, VC has turned into the next rung on the career ladder for CIOs/CISOs, whose role is otherwise generally terminal (unlike e.g. COO or CMO). So a lot of deals get done now just on giving CISOs a path into VC. It's more subtle than Gili's way, and just as effective.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40487846

1. These are all from a single 850-word op-ed I saw the other day: "Presidents do not usually lose power because of a single speech. They lose power when a speech reveals something structural." "But the most important part of the speech was not the applause lines. It was the compression." "Markets can rise. But voters do not live inside charts. They live inside grocery stores and mortgage payments." "The issue is not whether a statistic was stretched. The issue is that the presidency becomes reactive instead of agenda-setting." "That friction is not theoretical — it is baked into the constitutional design." "Trump’s address was not a pivot to persuasion — it was a doubling down on confrontation as strategy." "They are not just another campaign cycle. They are leverage."

Of course there are other cases where people do get genuinely screwed. My point is only that the cash value of an exit, even when it's a big number like $350m, doesn't tell you much.

Which isn't to say preference stacks (like debt stacks) can't get absurd when a failing company is doing anything it can to stay alive, but standard investor terms (1x liquidation preference) simply mean you're first in line to get your money back if the company is liquidated for less than the price you paid.

The self-dealing bit is generally already illegal and orthogonal to liquidation preferences.

Anyway, passkeys and FIDO broadly aren't the same thing. You can read the definition of passkeys at https://fidoalliance.org/passkeys/ or look at any of the marketing, which invariably talks about how great it is that you don't have to futz with passwords anymore.

FIDO credentials in general can obviously also be used as second factors. This is baked into the name of the original standard: U2F, Universal 2nd Factor. The specific point of passkeys though is that they're the single factor.

India's market trades options much, much more than the underlying stocks. This means that on one hand you can trade a lot of options without moving the market, and on the other you can move the market by trading comparatively few shares. Since options prices tend to be bounded by the price of the underlying, this is...a problem. For example you could buy shares to move the price up, sell calls, buy puts (aka a collar), then sell the shares to move the price back down so both calls and puts make money.

But it doesn't necessarily look like this is what Jane Street was doing. Instead they seem to have realized that stock and option prices already regularly diverged, and put the collars on to profit from corrections. In other words: arbitrage. Which, fair, can be functionally indistinguishable from market manipulation. But on paper it looks like they made prices better for everyday folks at the expense of the market makers and other institutions.

Matt Levine wrote a long Money Stuff column about this around the middle of last year.

With blocks this small there's also no reason not to optimize the number of hash functions (albeit this brings back the specter of saturation). There are no cache misses to worry about; all positions can be checked with a single mask.