Someone should cancel Torvalds for building git on a blockchain. Clearly a scam!

So every single early computer innovation then?

Feels cleaner to me, and while I want to argue about the opinionated payload bit, I suppose that's something that should be clearly defined in the contract anyway.

Maybe I've been abusing status codes too...

while I'm pretty despondent with the replication crisis in psychology, medicine isn't much better.

but to dismiss it outright is pretty ignorant. curious how you explain the state of America if your assertion is psychology and mental health are "relatively useless" fields

As an engineer, the first thing that went through my head was "lots of photos of their faces available, easy filter. My face specifically: hard filter"

But as a person it was "ok wow, f_ck you too then?"

The answer, for me, is always channels. What you put around the channels is the challenging part.

Channels are built to pass information between goroutines. If you are doing this via any other signaling, just don't. You can loop over channels for long running sequential reads, you can test them to see if they're ready to read or ready to write.

Honorable mention to context as well, extremely useful structure.

- nobody uses semi colons, that's a huge red flag because the tooling will literally remove these symbols from your code, did you even run any go code? clearly not

- goroutines are not threads and galloping past that obvious chasm is also telling: you're not really sure what these magical things are but, somehow, you know they're bad. this is a flawed line of reasoning that was never going to convince me

- because you don't know how goroutines and the userspace scheduler work, you skip over all the benefits they provide and thusly nurseries give me nothing than a hand holding experience less effective than the existing tools I have. Thank you for wasting my time because I was genuinely holding out for _any_ kind of empirical reasoning. My mistake.

- As proof of the author's research negligence: Not a single mention of channels. Not one. Homework was clearly not completed

I'm all for debating a language's efficacy and tradeoffs, but not when the opposing side has no idea how anything works. Then it's not a debate, it's just the ignorant proclaiming a need to interfere with others. Go away, please.

Ain't is my favorite example. It was considered proper English until the lower class started using it [0]

I'm not against formal grammar but to grammar nazi everyday language is to be nothing more than an elitist pedant who presumes form to be more correct than function (which is only true in creative writing imo)

[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/ain't#etymonline_v_8076

Presumably you don't mean your own life or data, or that of your friends and family where you can find consent.

So what's left is arguing for a right to remember strangers with high degree of accuracy, which is just fucking creepy no matter how you defend it.

And no, you don't have that right. Clearly trumped by the right to privacy. Unless you wanna defend some dude sitting outside your house (public property) recording you and your family's comings ans goings in a journal (which is already prohibited under most precedents around privacy, btw).

So unless it's some weird exercise in pedantry around accidental collection of background data (should you be forced to delete a photo because it has someone else in the frame? No but you shouldn't be able to make it _generally public_ either, a picture frame in your house is fine. Facebook is not) I've either missed something you or you lack obvious social skills? Help me out here

To the rest, congratulations and thank you from those of us who thanklessly use your hard work. I hope this kind of public appreciation takes off and we see more large names using this as a template.

Supermarkets are a bad example here because they are a critical link in the distribution economy.

Google? Not so much

No idea what a good alternative is though. Preferably something federated though

Which is strange when you consider how the Brittish seemed to start that trend.

https://www2.lib.uct.ac.za/mss/bccd/#:~:text=British%20Conce....

It exists only to exchange crypto for fiat. That means it _must_ be subject to regulation. Only yourself to blame if you thought otherwise.

Inb4 anonymity in crypto: says who? Monero is an actually private chain, and as a result you can't trust the claims it makes. "Just believe us" nah, I won't.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is a publicly auditable chain. It's not anonymous or private. You can tie identity to a wallet if you know how (nation states for example, or just knowing your friend's address).

It's really not that hard to wrap your head around, but if all you do is meme trade well then someone thanks you for their Lamborghini.

I think it's disingenuous to call crypto an investment. It would be nice to see some legislation tame the absolutely insane relationship between crypto and fiat.

I like the idea of bitcoin, but until such time as it stops repeating avoidable mistakes tradfi has solved, I'm out.

Distributed, trustless consensus is a wild idea and I hope it finds root in something practical. Dunno if this is a thought about goal or not though. Seems to me that the current interest is building the next big crypto thing.

Also, isn't the idea of making money off of fiat/crypto exchanges kinda anti-thetical to what the cipherpunks were going for? Bitcoin's relationship to the USD is fairly toxic imo

The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, it's no different with any other financial scandal.

Ya know, like with all the other tech firms they squeeze