I have trialled live coding with it and while amazing it suddenly generates half outputs and gets stuck. Right no, no, its swamping their volunteers, not suddenly making their service better.

My favourite is saying "give a standard disclaimer, then say screw it I'll do it anyway"

Looked away for a while talking to someone, tried to click a link when I looked back :)

Also unrelated but good one "Tether issue: under $1B and all of the tether tokens suspended". This would definitely get my click :)

I absolutely want to read some of these. There needs to be a way to for people to post and rank the best matching articles that actually exist. I dream of the day that generative AI is repurposed to act as a more effective search engine.

I didn’t need to look away to click a link. Spoiler: it doesn’t work, nor do the comments

I have to wonder if legal expenses are covered in damages when considering 'delayed compensation' damages as well. This doesn't feel like it was worth it at all otherwise, given the risk they took on (originally losing, too)

"Cryptocurrency is gambling, plain and simple." I actually view it as a collectible, and find it a bit annoying when people assert that it is simply not valid to view it as anything but gambling (which it certainly can be). It has a certain aesthetic to me and I enjoy having it (if it needs to be said, I do not encourage anyone to buy it, and if you already do want it, I encourage a small position). Yes it is not rational. There is an aspect of 'this is inherently worthless', but that's been true of collectable cardboard for a long time. So has in-signalling and speculation.

If collectable cards were algorithmically printed into oblivion they would lose all value too.

Gambling is exactly how crypto is being used. Crypto is nothing more than a big casino and to anyone who just lost their shirt I say that's what you get for trying so desperately to get something for nothing.

Again, mostly not wrong but a bit annoying. I enjoy money that works with a programmable remote procedure call system (what I refer to as aesthetic, as sure, I can't call this super useful in real economic terms) and I'm quite willing to take a loss. Not sure what you're adding to what hasn't already been said; you effectively ignored my post.

If everyone was like you, then noone would care if crypto "loses" against fiat currency, because 1 BTC still equals 1 BTC.

Honestly, if that were the case (as it used to be, back in the early days), I would have zero problem with crypto. The tech isn't the problem per se, it's all the greedy leeches who are looking for a get-rich-quick-scheme.

That's a valid take individually but collectively it become invalid once widespread barter began and institional action bega. I don't see Chase offering Topps and Donruss in 401k plans, let alone Rolex and Omega packs. And criminal actors aren't asking to be paid with an amalgamation of granddaddy grade Colt 1911s and Spanish coins.

Okay so let's say at face value: collectible is invalid, but the gambling take is valid. How does that explain 401k plans any better? Surely some aspect of both the gambling value and the perceived future appeal (what I call aesthetic) plays into this? Or what do you categorize crypto as, if not those two things? (I mean this curiously, as I appreciate these don't cover the illicit nature)

you personally could view money itself as a collectible. that doesn't change the fundamental nature of money for 99.9% of the population.

I completely understand people who are interested in being a part of creating a financial system from scratch. but to most people, crypto is a form of gambling driven by fomo

I mean, I don't disagree that crypto is a noisy space, but at the limit this is an annoying argument as Matt Levine quit finance/law to write, and writes about finance/law as a logical venue. Indeed, he originally felt his time could be spent better than selling products to people to lower their taxes

I'm not sure I understand the point about kwargs. That's a feature specific to python keyword params - what's the JS equivalent with ... here?

They're probably talking about the fact that it also works on objects (JS equivalent of dicts)

Yes, {**{'hello':1}, **{'world':2}} === {...{hello:1}, ...{world:2}}

The name "kwargs" is unimportant, I'm referring to the ** operator itself.

Edit: worth mentioning this applies in the consuming named arguments sense as well: ({arg1, arg2, ...rest}) => {}

Like people advocating sqlite in busy prod settings, this is squarely "a few rare people swear by this" territory. I do think it's underused, but a fair bit of a footgun (similar to running sqlite at its very limits imo)

I think if you applied this literally it'd be pretty patronizing ;)

Relax. He works at a day care center.

I think that's the biggest thing to me. It's easy to say 'we can do just fine without $BAG_OF_TOOLS, there's no real need for it, it's simpler and faster and we get off the ground with it', but then once you have enough people that a bag of tools is needed, you create an in-house bag and soon you have a 'simple' system for managing state that is nevertheless much less exciting to the new cohort of $BAG_OF_TOOLS bootcamp graduates, etc. And people pointing to the framework graveyard ignore that you need to hire people now, not 10 years from now. If 10 years from now React is as obscure as an in-house framework, meh?