The goal with Pix was not to increase the total amount of value tranfered, but the amount of small micro-transactions, increasing fluidity and bypassing unecessary bureacratic processes.

TED still wins by raw value, but that amount is irrelevant. It is what is left after the small-fry micro-transactions were liberated from complicated, archaic systems. Those small-fry transactions provided a lot of fluidity to the market, which is the realm in which Visa and Mastercard were supposed to act (incresing consumption) but were unable to compete due to their own legacy devices. They really need to catch up with the competition: those systems and their culture are ancient relics.

That book isn't, it's built from humility and a rare bright light in this god forsaken field.

The ideological and geopolitical provocations comes from the US. The government is merely defending itself, and being decisive about our sovereignty is not an act of aggression. It's just good statesmanship.

The phrase "PIX is ours" wasn't even directed at the US. It was promoted because a previous Brazilian president tried to attach is personal name to the technology. It was later adopted in that defensive posture, but it was never about fostering any grievances with other payment systems.

Data centers are a commodity, and the US gets tremendous revenue from Brazilian businesses that use it (fourth largest AWS customer location). It's a symbiotic relationship, and there are other countries able to provide computing power if we need to cut ties with it. If that happens, businesses can rent those from somewhere else.

You underestimate our ability to handle these things. Watch us.

The other direction (not using standards, owning parts you don't need) would make it for slower adoption, lots of new government responsibilities and very few additional sovereign control. It would be worse.

Building a "technical moat" is for companies which have direct competition. The state can solve this by making regulations. It doesn't need that technical moat, simplicity is better suited. It's acting exactly at the intersection it needs: in the regulation, delegation and coordination realm, not execution.

I'm here just to clear out the confusion regarding the infrastructural pieces. The core PIX is undeniably sovereign and state-owned, and the Amazon downtime was lack of resilience on the part of the banks (which they could have totally designed around but decided not to).

Exactly. That is one of the aspects that allow for the system to be sovereign and scalable. Banco Central controls the core, and that's all it needs to.

This is good design. Descentralized, modern, resilient and efficient.

What went down were apps from banks that use PIX, not the core infrastructure.

That is responsibility of the banks. It means private banks like Itau and Nubank rely on Amazon, not the Central Bank. They relied on those hyperscalers for their operation, and their gateways went down with it.

PIX has sovereign, private infrastructure on brazillian soil managed by Banco Central. NIC.br and other essential services do the same.

PIX is ours.

Which affairs?

This is super weird, and I can't buy the narrative when clear outliers like this are in the mix.

This is, as far as I can tell, sensationalist work that disgustingly aggregates troubled individuals deaths to put forward a patriot narrative that might not hold water.

This gist is the prototype for josh, a comprehensive (but not complete) JavaScript interpreter that works as a JS-to-sh transpiler.

Here is an example JS program that it is able to run:

https://gist.github.com/alganet/9bdb3be7212e3c2f96cff17984fe...

Some features are intentionally missing, such as try/catch and spreading.

The code is a 2.2KLOC standalone portable shell script (bash, dash, zsh, ksh, busybox, mksh and possibly others) with zero external dependencies (no sed, awk, cat, anything).

It was bundled from modules from the same shell script language toolkit that I previously used to develop c89cc.sh (the pure portable shell c89 compiler). This time, the parser is hand-written, which makes it much smaller and readable.

This is a research endeavour, with potential applications in JS setup and automation tools (replacing the need for a full nodejs in setup scripts and so on).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47779074

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

At an enthusiast-level of knowledge (which is the level we're discussing here), I am way far ahead of you on this.

And that's why the whole system is divided into two parties that both, each, funnel all their support to the presidential campaign (and then to taking over seats to guarantee more lobbying).

This whole thing would fall apart without lobbying.

If all is well, then it's all good: no need to blame anyone, campaings get funded, etc. If one major crisis occours though, the country self-immolates by design.

> The United States reported the lowest trust in its own government to regulate AI responsibly of any country surveyed, at 31%.

It seems US citizens are really against the current administration, just using the fact that AI investment is intrinsecally connected to it to voice their opposition.

> Country-level expectations follow similar patterns to the earlier sentiment trends. Nigeria, Japan, Mexico, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, and India all expected AI to create more jobs than it eliminates, with shares above 60%. The United States and Canada sat at the opposite end, where 67% and 68% of respondents expected AI to eliminate jobs and disrupt industries.

Globally, the disconnect is not growing. It's really just an U.S. problem (spilling to neighbouring Canada too).

So, no luddites in sight, again. It's just a public perception over a polemic topic being leveraged for ideological reasons sinking AI on US only.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47730179

Initially, I presented it as "please elaborate" questions. A courtesy, to give you the benefit of the doubt.

So far, you were not able to answer them with the same kind of courtesy that I initially offered.

Instead, you doubled-down on answering vaguely, hoping that I would slip at some point to a defensive position in which I would offer math and numbers, which are totally YOUR responsibility to provide, since YOU MADE THE CLAIM.

I don't need to prove that something that never happened is impossible. You need to prove that what never happened is possible (because you said it is). Capisce? It's basic science communication.

I don't need to do anything here. I'm right until you're able to prove otherwise.

That is just incorrect. Fuel tank design and arrangement, for example, is full of internal mass dynamics.

> would be politically complicated for NASA

Let me repeat this again: Falcon Heavy cannot carry Orion. There is no complication here.

NASA and SpaceX collaborate heavily. NASA doesn't build rockets, they're administrators. If SpaceX could be used, they would have used it (as they did with Dragon and so many other projects).

Stop trying come up with makeshift excuses for the lack of technical background you failed to provide.

> Both Challenger and Columbia were lost because people forgot they were experimental vehicles operating under conditions we don't fully understand.

Irrelevant attempt at misdirection. This has nothing to do with whether Falcon Heavy can or cannot test Artemis shields.

---

You're desperately trying to pivot the discussion from a technical one (in which you demonstrated lack of basic knowledge about several important topics) to a political one (which is murky and easier to navigate into a tarpit).

Ethanol alone accounts for roughly 1/5 of all energy in Brazil, with almost 50% of light-vehicle fuels being renewable.

For heavy vehicles, biodiesel is gaining in. Ethanol started in the 70s, the biodiesel program is much more recent (10-15% mixture in regular diesel).

It's not just electricity here, we're doing serious work on the fuel front.

It's not an insult. You're overestimating SpaceX capabilities and I'm correcting you. There's no shame in that. I do find strange that you're insisting on it though.

> Bring in the math.

Falcon Heavy never carried anything similar to Orion. It never performed a second-stage "second burn trick" [sic]. There has never been a shield test like you described. Those things were never even hypothesized formally.

You made the claim that it can do those things with insufficient evidence. You need to back that up. I'm not going to fall for a reversal of an onus that you, and you alone, should prove.