Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47232560

Points: 1

# Comments: 2

That's not what the commenter said. Don't put your interpretation of the words into theirs.

It is very feasible that the investment of 100-some-odd years of battery research and a marked non-future invested as deeply into oil and gas as we have now would have rendered our entire world vastly different. This is not a claim that the future would have happened sooner, but rather the events that unfolded and the research would have been different.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30012967

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/542629/

> Many people, including myself, believe that the individual should be able to own their own identity.

Yes, this is nice wishful thinking, but on a global scale it's not really possible or feasible.

> OAuth2 should be used for what it was intended to, which is for a web service to provide another web service with a user’s data given that user’s consent. It should not be used as a global digital identifier because that’s too important to be owned by anyone but the individual themselves.

So, instead of OAuth being in the hands of FAANG[1] it's in the hands of ${blockchain-of-the-year}? How does moving the trust from a centralized company to a centralized blockchain change MY ownership? If I move everything away from FAANG to someone's blockchain, I have no assurance that chain will continue existing. If there's a flaw found in it and everyone moves to another chain, now what? Sure, we can make the same claim about FAANG not continuing to exist, but the point is there's no inherent advantage here, they're equal. FAANG are supported by millions of individuals and companies that are all, together invested in their success. There's no unilateral agreement on blockchains and I doubt there ever will be.

>With social recovery, instead of having to trust Google, you can choose who you trust, and instead trust a given set of friends, family, and services.

Again with the trust this and not that. All of my friends, family and other services need to then agree that they're all going to trust ${chain} instead of FAANG. It doesn't fix the problem. "the blockchain" isn't just one thing. Who's chain do we all shift trust to and from and based on what security? At least with Google I can rely on their security because if they end up with a breach of trust it's going to have a massive, real impact on share prices and consumer trust around the globe. That's incentive enough for me to rely on it day-to-day.

This article has some interesting tidbits but overall seems like just a baseless rally against FAANG by someone who knows very little about complex authentication or trust and security in the real world.

[1]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/faang-stocks.asp

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/971473/number-k-12-schoo...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26897069

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

The reason his podcast is popular is because his guests are almost always interesting and contrary to a LOT of media in our era, he lets them speak. I think the viewpoint that somehow there's a cult of Joe Rogan followers who listen in only to hear Joe's POV on things is really tonedeaf.

I made an honest attempt to understand someone before engaging with them, next time I'll just spew some uninformed BS if that's better?

This is why I fell in love with Redis right from the beginning. Having a data store that gets out of the way and just gives you the structures (a lot like programming data structures) to do what you need feels awesome. Picking up the commands and putting them to use feels as natural as reaching for any vector/list/whatever structures I use anyway in my programs.

Thanks so much for everything you're doing antirez.

I'm sitting here reading this article thinking "My gods, I wouldn't wish this on anyone, forget about your heartbeat before it drags you into panic attacks!"