Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more TheColorYellow's commentslogin

How is YJS different from introducing CRDT? Doesn't it basically just do that for you anyways?

If CRDT is complications and difficult to manage, either YJS resolves that completely, or more likely that complexity will leak out of the abstraction layer no matter what.

To me it seems more like that OP should compare and contrast concurrency solutions, one of which is CDRT via YJS or another could be something like concurrency based on Go routines.

Edit: Should obviously mention Loro, the literal thread we're in now lol


I wrote that comment as a stream-of-consciousness, so it could have been written much clearer. What I meant was that you probably don't want to reach for a CRDT of any kind unless either multi-tab or multi-user editing is an inherent part of your app's experience. Else you can get the same benefits with less complexity.


Because at this point it's a well known API. I bet people want to recreate AWS without the Amazon part, and so this is for them.

Which, to your point, makes no sense because as you rightly point out, people use S3 because of the Amazon services and ecosystem it is integrated with - not at all because it is "good tech"


S3 was the second AWS service, behind SQS, and saw rapid adoption which cannot be explained by integration with services introduced later.


Storage is generally sticky but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that reason because it might explain why anything would fail to displace it; a bunch of software is written against S3 and the entire ecosystem around it is quite rich. It doesn’t explain the initial popularity but does explain stickiness. Initial popularity was because it was the first good REST API to do cloud storage AND the price was super reasonable.


Oh, I’m definitely not saying integration or compatibility have nothing to do with it - only that “horrible interface with a terrible lack of features” seems impossible to reconcile with its immense popularity.


First mover + ecosystem wins over interface. And also, I really don’t have so many issues with the interface as others seem to and we had to implement it from scratch for R2. There’s features we extended on top of S3 so it’s not really the interface so much but rather that Amazon doesn’t really invest in adding features so much. I suspect it’s really hard for them to do so. We also exposed a native JS API that was more ergonomic but the S3 endpoint saw more traffic which again points to the ecosystem advantage - people have an S3 codebase and want to do as a drop in replacement as possible.


They weren’t the first mover on either object storage or storage over HTTP.


They were first mover for cloud storage and combining object storage with HTTP. Previous attempts were WebDAV (not object storage and very complicated to the point that kk one implemented) and Hadoop which didn’t have HTTP and couldn’t scale like S3’s design.


S3 is just HTTP. There isn't really an ecosystem for S3, unless you just mean all the existing http clients.


The preceding lines in this surah explicitly mention this is addressed to wives of the Prophet who are unlike other women. The answer in your link even explicitly mentions this is their interpretation outside of what is explicitly written.

Islam is no different from the other Abrahamic religions. It is the culture of organized Islam that is uniquely violent, conservative, and extreme in its views today.

But please, DYOR.


Religion is always interpreted by people and how they interpret and act on the text becomes the religion itself. If you read the Bible, you'll find Christians don't follow most of the stuff written there and do follow a lot of stuff that is nowhere to be found in the bible (the Trinity, for example).

You can't really separate the religion from its culture is what I'm saying. If you go to into a cave and practice your own pure form of Islam, that is commendable, but has no impact on the rest of the world and thus isn't worthy of discussion.


>Islam is no different from the other Abrahamic religions.

But it is. For one, it claims its book, the Quran, is the literal word of god. This makes wiggling out of the (many) nasty bits much harder.


Does this give credence to cryptoeconomics?


It's mostly neglect on behalf of the teams. In this case, the code was never audited and was created by a rather immature team that was rushing for production. So recupe for disaster.

In truth you can write code that is upgradable or ammendable, but always within limits of Ethereum transactions being immutable. However, when a project wants to emphasize that immutability, because that's perceived as the need by the users and the devs, then you end up in this situation.

So, as usual, the problem is solvable with a little diligence. The challenge is for crypto culture to get over itself and mature and actually perform that diligence.

I will say that there are very mature, very well developed projects that you don't hear about getting hacked, because they take advantage of the wealth of experience that's been built on this subject.


>So, as usual, the problem is solvable with a little diligence.

If you're going to potentially lose tens or hundreds of millions, you need a lot more than a little diligence. Formally proved code (something along the lines of Ada with Spark Pro) is the bare minimum for something with some much money on the line, and even then I'd still prefer a traditional contract and leave things to the courts.


> The intersection of organizations who can run a bank but don't already have entrenched software to do so, and want to build all the other software themselves seems vanishingly small.

Most FinTech is like this though. User Facing front end custom services built on top of bank infra. The bank infra is typically a bank partner and rarely is something like Stripe depending on the exact use case. This basically provides an intermediate alternative between Stripe and bespoke banking relationship.


Most people on HN here don't have a clue of what they are talking about, whether it is financial market regulation or cryptocurrency or blockchain technology.

What makes this topic difficult to approach is the degree of complex issues which surrounds it. We are looking at the intersection of technology innovation, the long-standing failure of institutional and market mechanisms, and combined with a bleak macroeconomic context.

Most people here should take a good reminder that they actually aren't experts in everything.


This community has been discussing crypto since 2009 (four months after 'Satoshi' mined the genesis block) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=599852

It may still be true that "most people" here don't have a clue about it, but it's a hollow criticism since far more have a clue here than elsewhere.


you can be epicly early and epicly wrong. in that very thread:

> Well this is an exceptionally cute idea, but there is absolutely no way that anyone is going to have any faith in this currency.


I checked the history of the user who left that comment; it shows recent posts about crypto, too. That's thirteen years of following the subject.

The claim in the parent post, roughly, is that the HN community is clueless about crypto and economics. In reality, HN had a large hand in popularizing crypto, and criticism here often is based on experience rather than ignorance.


What are you talking about? Read some history prior to the 4 years of the SEC.

Look at the suggested reforms the SEC was supposed to undertake AS IDENTIFIED BY CONGRESS. Then look at what actual reforms where implemented.

I'll help you out - almost none. The SEC has had a monopoly on financial market regulation since the 1930s and is just now becoming a victim to the cultural side affects of this monopoly. Shit, I actually think the SEC has done a phenomenal job regarding this and all other aspects of their job.


> The SEC has had a monopoly on financial market regulation since the 1930s

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, National Futures Association, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and many others would like a word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Comm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Industry_Regulatory_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Futures_Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_...


I appreciate your sentiment, but I want to point out that your belief that "Traditional brokerage houses have regulations forcing them to play fair" and believing that there are adequate "reporting structures to enforce it" is a great example of the moral hazard that exists in the market today.

I agree that law and regulation plays an important role in the market, but as the market has advanced and become increasingly more complex than previous models, I do not believe Law and regulation has kept up.

The GME fiasco and the resulting litigation is a good example of these problems. And before anyone says this is proof the rules in place work - I'd like to point out that our online brokerage infrastructure and market structure has been around since the early 2000's. It's quite difficult to say what has not been surfaced and recognized. And no, despite the nature of the trade itself, no one should discredit the lawsuit as illegitimate. https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/01/29/gamestop-lawsuits-hi...

The absurdity and extreme nature of the GME case shows tells me that there are outstanding issues throughout this value chain. And the belief that our system of rules adequately handles this just because the rules exist is a strong indicator of the moral hazard that prevades our market culture.


Everything is relative. You cite GME, fair point. I'll cite Quadriga CX, where the founder died in India and took the passwords to the grave with him. Pretty much everyone had their coins frozen forever. That would never happen to people's stock portfolio's at a major brokerage firm.

The SEC is far from perfect, but what they do adds value to the individual investor in general.


Public companies swindle quite often, and usually with more catastrophic results.

When are we going to admit that the current rules are no longer working?


So, given that companies swindle with catastrophic results, you're suggesting to have fewer rules and regulations? Less enforcement and oversight?


So then you agree that accredited investing requirements aren't the problem?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: