This 'one line change' is an existential and fundamental effect on the company, it may very well affect operations otherwise.

'One line of code' can easily blow up a system, and the checks are not there to for the 99% of time time we are 'all good' it's for the 1% of the time when there is sketchiness.

Someone complaining about 'hard coded variables' is perfectly right to do so.

Every single element in this situation is in place for very good reason.

Imagine someone wanting to replace the lock in your Airline door, mid flight - oh, we'll just use a 'regular screwdriver' instead of the one designed for the door, who cares!? It's just an airplane!

The gripes are misplaced: the solution for this situation probably is to have a war room/crunch room situation to move the issue quickly and correctly through the hurdles so it can be done within the timeframe needed.

All of those 'delays in between' were the problem - they did not respect the urgency of the situation.

Every attempt to peel away the onion layer reveals mass problems.

It's like saying 'we have no hard proof that all this Mafia gangs revenue came from illegal activity!'.

What I'm saying is, the point of crypto is hustle, there is no real economy, and the players are all shady as can be.

Literally nobody knows where the Binance guy even is!

Why would the Binance guy want to hide from global authorities?

Regular bank CEO's don't.

It's mafia-adjacent the whole way down, with a lot of small dupes and kids playing with some amount of money.

There is no 'there there' in the value creating sense that we might want to see.

If you told me BTC was 95% regular people using it for business and 5% shady, I'd say we need to work on that problem. But it's only 5% 'useful' and the rest is just layers of scam and fraud.

We need to dump crypto, and if we want to try that experiment again - because I think there might be value there - we can give it a new name and keep it clean from the start.

BTC is ironically not a very free market in that sense, moreover, because nobody needs it for anything, it has a buy-hold characteristic.

If people needed BTC for things (which would force some liquidity ops) then we'd see a price that reflected something.

Crypto markets are essentially 'schemes' of one kind or another, they serve no purpose other than to be a hustle.

If people want to play dumb games, that's fine, as long as they are doing it legally and it doesn't rope in a lot of external players.

VC is a wide gamut, the top 25% generates something like 30% IRR while the bottom 25% is negative return.

LP in VC is just like VC - have to get in on the good deals and I think maybe since it's harder to evaluate deals, than say for building some homes, a lot of money goes to crap.

A certified carpenter has more trade-specific information than your average dev out of a great Uni.

It'd be positive if there were some degree of institutionalization of software.

The developer is not.

This reads 'immature borderline toxic' I can't imagine having to work with this kind of drama.

Consider: what is more 'free'?

A) Here is some code, do whatever with it?

or

B) Here is some code, you can only use it in certain circumstances?

FSF is dead because it's not practical, and the ideologues behind it naively malign 'capitalism' as something terrible for the world.

OSS makers are free to publish as they chose. Apple and MS don't force or cajole anyone to use MIT. If you use copyleft, your software will not likely get used very much and that's that.

'Big companies leverage over small developers!'

True, maybe they should get together and license their software to Large Corporations?

Finally, the conversation started with a giant Photo of Stallman and that hints at the ideological demagoguery right from the start no matter how much they try to play it down, it'd have been better to not opened the discussion with that at all.

In the end, it will not matter, very few will use copyleft because it's just not practical and that's that.

But more broadly, the value is IP, essentially know-how and lock-in with customers, relationships etc..

Things like 'egress data' can be a problem, but for the most part, even if AWS is more expensive than self hoste - the 'total cost of ownership' is much cheaper in the cloud - usually.

Are we at diminishing marginal returns and not getting closer?

Do we need a 'leap' in AI? Or is this just a matter of grinding it out?

Those things alone would make 90% of sites better.

My god man just give us the goods!

The statement 'kill all men' is literally a call to violence.

Now of course (probably?) you didn't mean it as that, but it still falls well within purview of 'obviously moderated', probably immediately, by the automated mechanisms, and frankly, how could you expect anything otheriwse?

The fact that you're willing to admit your bigotry and blatant hate speech on another forum, as though somehow you're a victim, is probably an exmaple of how we tolerate trolling dirtbag bigotry, so long as it 'targets the correct side'.

My god man the lack of self awareness.

Moreover, it seems most of the activists don't want to contemplate that bigotry runs in all directions and saying things about 'men' or 'white people' probably should fall under the same auspices ... which is why even as irresponsible and inconsistent as Musk is, he leans a bit more 'loose' than not which is probably preferable than ideological forms of censorship.

I also feel that as a society, we're going to get used to 'foul language' and that it just doesn't have the resonance it might have had.

Someone spreading fake papers saying 'doctors are trying to kill you with vaccines', with a ton of followers, is actually more problematic than some random dirtbag's side-comment.

It's a bit like Zero Hedge in that it's one of those places where they like to talk about how the 'World Really Works!' aka 'behind the curtain' and they do so with some actual insight and intelligence, but ultimately there's a lot of BS and lies, and plenty of over misinformation.

The author is also a pro-Putin fascist / apologist who thinks that Putin's invasion of Ukraine must somehow be the result of Russia's victimization by other countries.

Again - internal self sufficiency is not the basis of development.

S. America has relatively free trade for things they need, and there are no hugely relevant issues there.

The wheat innovation is going to be nice for Brazil, but more as a function of expansion of industry, not really on the basis of 'self sufficiency'.

Brazil's path to wealth lies through the reform of civic and social institutions, not through some kind of magic grain.

The same could be said of most places.

It's the other way around.

Brazil and Argentina especially should be rich, what's lacking is coherent social organization from top to bottom. Obviously it matters more at the top, but it has to be borne by regular people as well.

Same could be said of other Central/South American nations, but geographic factors and natural resources do give a material advantage that can be leveraged into a lot.

Consider that Canada, unlike most other so called 'advanced nations' - does not actually have lot of advanced industry. Research, yes, but 'applied' - no. And yet, because it has a 'free export card' with natural resources, it can import the equipment and materials necessary to support the rest of the regular domestic economy, which benefits from ultra boring politics, 'functional' bureaucracy, low levels of corruption.

Innovations can only be leveraged by organizations that have the coherent ability to make use if them.

The 'low hanging fruit' in Brazil is governance, though I hope this Wheat helps.

If the claims of climate change people were true, that we are facing existential destruction in short order - then how is it possible they are denying a tried and true solution?

We could have reached 'Paris targets' long ago were we to have kept deploying Nuclear installations, in the terms that we understood decades ago. With fewer accidents. Etc.

The denial of a tried and true solution to this supposedly existential crisis destroys their credibility, and therefor their claims. That's not to say clams aren't valid, but that we can't trust the vanguard of the people behind the climate movement, obviously.

It's incredibly naive (but maybe understandable) for people to not understand that the issue of climate change is hugely politicized and ideological, and because of that, it's hard to make heads or tails of a lot of information.

People running around screaming that the sky is falling - and not talking about Nuclear as part (possibly the basis) of the solution - are spreading irrational fear and hysteria. There's no reason to talk about 'mass flooding' if we can solve the problem in a fairly straight forward manner.