I didn't totally follow the issues with keeping the data in memory, and it sounds like it is solved now - but you could probably use a cardinality estimation algorithm to estimate the number of unique beacon IDs while only using constant space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count-distinct_problem
That’s a really good point. I’ve been meaning to go to a football game recently and bring it, to stress test it with the largest gathering I can quickly access. If it can easily scan a couple thousand without a sweat, I’d consider it pretty solid anyway. But a fixed-size estimating data structure would be really cool to research. I will surely look into it, thank you for the suggestion!
Side note: Definitely one of my favorite parts of this project, that I get to investigate more in-depth and interesting CS concepts without having to worry about doing the easiest solution. I’m scratching an itch, not developing a solution to deliver ASAP.
If the selection criteria for two groups of people is "anybody" and the rules imposed on them are, "do whatever comes naturally in the absence of institutions or accepted culture," the things you see the groups doing will be almost exactly the same.
I raised an eyebrow at "This was a group of idealists... all in pursuit of a higher mission." It's buying into the whole "SBF was just a crazy kid with big dreams who wasn't too great at counting the money" mythos.
I don't know any of them personally but "This was a group of scam artists in pursuit of a bigger payout." seems closer to the mark.
One lesson of the last ten years is the wealthy in the US are stunningly bad at spotting scam artists that appeal to their ideas of what an idealist should look like.
Arguably many people have this weakness and merely lack the resources to deploy when it is triggered.
There's an alternative explanation: if you're good enough at convincing me to invest with you, you'll do the same with others. As long as I'm in early, you will make me money, even if I know the house of cards will eventually crumble. By then, I won't be a bag holder. (Probably.)
I.e. greed and pride/hubris. The idealist image is just the current behavior that the investor expects will attract subsequent investors. This would explain bubbles much better than "rich people seem to be taking random walks."
You’re an optimist! I would argue the Sequoia writings about SBF and the farce with Theranos indicates these people actually did believe what they were being sold.
I guess one interpretation is Sequoia were the greater fool.
I used to put some amount of stock into the idea that he could've just been reckless. It's been pretty clear in the trial that at least all of the top leadership not only knew but were in on the scam, thinking they'd make and move enough money consistently to keep things going.
It's more curious to me how a bunch of people from Jane Street could believe anything like a Ponzi can keep going.
The other thing about the “crazy kid with big dreams” thing that really bugs me is that real altruism is putting others above one’s self.
Effective Altruism, on the other hand, is roughly the belief that you, personally, should be the savior of all mankind and should also get fabulously wealthy along the way. It’s just pure egotism with good PR.
I couldn't even read the entire article after that ... just skimmed it. Even if they had some kind of believe in crypto tech, in the end it was about getting rich via whatever that would take.
I think that's a different issue. Amazon has thorny problems with takedowns. Company A trying to get rival company B's listing taken down probably happens 100's of times a day. I believe Amazon uses "proof of purchase" kinda like a CAPTCHA or proof of work - an extra hoop to jump through to reduce the volume of these things they have to adjudicate.
This may seem like quibbling, but I think when large companies do this kind of thing, "greed" is the wrong kind of explanation. Greed is an emotion, or moral failing if you will, humans have. A company like DC is a complex, non-sentient system. It doesn't have emotions, it has interlocking sets of incentives (sales bonus plans, executive compensation based on beating last quarter's numbers, etc) which collectively and incrementally nudge the behavior of their employees towards unethical shortcuts. This tendency can be temporarily reined in by regulations, civil suits, strong-willed executives and employees, or a company culture that prizes integrity and longer-term results. When those restraints don't apply strongly enough, this behavior kicks in. I'm not sure what the right term is, but I'm reluctant to call it greed for the same reason that ChatGPT isn't "lying".
I would guess though that such arguably corrupt structures always emit from the leadership. The way to have a moral company is by having moral leadership. The issue is that there is no incentive for a company to have moral leadership (or not for that matter). It just gets the leadership it gets. If the leadership is into cutting corners, this will radiate out in the form of the mechanisms you mention, where in lower levels people WILL do immoral things not because they're greedy, but because of the compan structures put in place by the people who are.
Ultimately thoug I believe the market corrects for it. We're seeing that right now with Unity. It just takes a lot of time for a bit company like this.
> "greed" is the wrong kind of explanation. [...] A company like DC is a complex, non-sentient system. [...] it has interlocking sets of incentives [...] which collectively and incrementally nudge the behavior of their employees towards unethical shortcuts.
Institutionalised Greed is a form of Complicit Exploitation.
"I was just following orders," is one of the typical apologies.
> This tendency can be temporarily reined in by regulations, civil suits, strong-willed executives and employees, or a company culture that prizes integrity and longer-term results.
These are checks on greed, dishonesty, and cruelty. All that stands between healthy social order and chaos is the social trustworthiness of people.
I have in the past[1], several times It gets old having the same false things posted over and over. often my posts[1] with the linked are also "flagged" because people here do not want to truth, they want the narrative.
> I would have to disagree with the characterization of two opinion blog posts from relatively unknown authors as “unbiased sources.”
The first link is from Destiny, a well-known (albeit controversial) online figure. It seems to be a factual timeline of events with citations for every claim made, which is far from an opinion piece.
Presence of citations has near zero meaning in terms of goals of the writing or bias. These are so clearly opinion pieces. One is bordering on an attack piece.
> Presence of citations has near zero meaning in terms of goals of the writing or bias. These are so clearly opinion pieces.
Completely dismissing the content because you believe it must be biased is somewhat ironic.
Would you at least then concede that the Wikipedia article is also unreliable and biased?
> One is bordering on an attack piece.
Which one? If you're referring to the piece published by Destiny, what constitutes an "attack piece" if all the claims made are rigorously cited? Would being an attack piece invalidate the claims even if they're demonstrably true?
Not the person you responded to, but this[1] is a very thorough and well-sourced criticism of the person behind the campaign to get Kiwifarms removed from Cloudflare. Sections two and three specifically go into the lies, misrepresentation and bad journalism surrounding Kiwifarms itself if you'd prefer not to read the whole thing.
Probably because due to the nature of the issue even actual unbiased source will likely be perceived as biased. The issue is contentious enough for strong tribes to form on both sides - linking to any source in that situation means taking a risk of making either of them, or often both, hostile to you.
Moreover, if it's about the situation mentioned earlier this year on HN, it's problematic because of its complexity and gravity. Even with just facts and only facts, the change of the narrative (ie. the order you present the facts in) is enough for the same reasonable person to come to opposite conclusions. And that's before accounting for rhetorical devices that aim to manipulate the reader while still not crossing the line and sticking to facts - happily employed by both sides of the discussion in staggering quantities. (Then, of course, there's the other 90% of sources full of lies and fabrications, but let's leave those alone on HN at least...)
In short - it's not worth the hassle unless you're invested in the matter enough to care a lot, and once you are, odds are you won't post an unbiased source anyway. You'll need to do your own research, wade through a metric crapton of some of the worst humanity has to offer, and form your own opinion based on that. I don't think there's a shortcut here.
Go on the kiwifarms website itself and ask yourself if it's okay/legal to be posting this manner of personal information on harassment victims. Make your own determination from the original source. Ask yourself if an infrastructure company should be forced against its will to support this.
> Ask yourself if an infrastructure company should be forced against its will to support this.
Come on, that is the literal fucking purpose of infrastructure. Water/sewage doesn't get to refuse to flush my toilet because the content of my stool doesn't meet their nutritional expectations.
Feel free to provide examples of companies which
a) are not 'in the crypto business' (ie they sell widgets, or software, not NFTs)
b) obtain the majority of their revenue via crypto.
Crypto is closer to autogyro than automobile in adoption, and there is no guarantee that will ever change.
The Best of Greg Egan is a perfectly respectable place to start.