My (leftist) opinion is that we don't give enough pardons. By the time people get out of prison, their lives are pretty much wrecked. We should have a lot more clemency and compassion. That's what the pardon is for.
If that means a ton of literal insurrectionists go free, that's fine with me. We elected someone precisely to do that. It's on the voters if we elected someone who was literally treasonous himself.
I hope the insurrectionists take the opportunity to get on with their lives. I gather that quite a few have already been banned for other crimes, and that's too bad.
I don't want prison to be vengeance. I want prison to make us all safer. I'd like the President to take a lot of leeway in finding people who are going to be productive citizens if they were given that gift.
You sound like you are advocating for commutation, not pardons. Commutation lowers the penalty given to a criminal by executive decree (which the president can also do) A pardon makes it so the conviction never happened.
You would probably consider me to your right, but I'm right there with you. Prison should be protective: we lock up people from whom the rest of us will not be safe unless they are segregated. Ideally it is also rehabilitatative, and once (if!) prisoners will be safe and productive members of society there is no point to keeping them locked up.
If there are other methods short of prison that can render law-breakers harmless - such as restrictions on certain activities and occupations - then those should be pursued first.
The ghost of this philosophy, however attenuated, can be seen in systems of pardon and parole.
I acknowledge that a desire for retribution - to punish the evil-doer; make them suffer for what they've done - is a strong impulse (I feel it myself!), deeply imbedded in our tribal psyches, but it should be fought, not indulged.
This seems to me to be the only moral basis for a system of justice and incarceration, though I have no idea how to nudge a society towards this model. Some northern European countries approach it.
I'm a leftist, and a Democrat by necessity (not by choice) and I would be fine if the power of pardon was removed for Presidents who share my ideology. I would rather have working separation of powers and reform the justice system than give one person carte blanche power to nullify it based on their whim.
Not everyone making a political argument is engaging in cynical tribalism. Believe it or not, some people do actually believe in things.
I think they are both generally ok, but also somewhat sketchy. I don't see them as much different from Clinton's pardons, Fords or Andrew Johnson's Christmas day pardons for confederate soldiers.
Are you joking? The cost of writing code is practically free. Some basic hosting is very cheap. Find just a couple of paying customers and you are self-sustaining. Hire only when the revenue supports it, and you remain that way.
Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think OP is suggesting that you actually create all the PPT slides and document everything before building a prototype or otherwise taking steps to start building a workable product.
But if the idea isn't fleshed out enough where you think that you could go through all that trouble; then maybe you are jumping the gun.
It sounds very similar to things like oil production, gold mining, and even farming. When the price is high, everyone wants in on the action. As supply explodes, the prices drop. Once prices get low enough, the costs to pump the next barrel of oil, find the next ounce of gold, or harvest the next acre of a certain crop; exceed the reward. When that happens, wells are shut down, mining operations suspended, and different crops planted. The cycle begins again.
There's a soft failure-mode for bitcoin where due to the alternating difficulty adjustment, you could end up with people only mining every other 2016-block adjustment.
Let's call this cycle A and cycle B.
If A is too hard, miners drop out, cycle B gets easier, miners flood back, cycle A gets harder.
This results in the hard cycle getting longer and the easy cycle getting shorter.
This isn't completely critical as there is I believe a small damping effect, so it isn't completely lethal to bitcoin, but a key thing about bitcoin mining is that whether other people are mining or not doesn't actually affect your own profitiability.
Other people dropping out doesn't actually mean you get more bitcoins per hour/watt, it only affects the next difficulty adjustment as a secondary effect.
The damping effect is that part of your costs are the hardware, space, depreciation etc. leaving that stuff idle costs money - so it makes sense to mine in the less profitable periods too.
That depends on each miner's energy costs, so long as (variable cost of energy - revenue from coins) < fixed costs. It's still negative cashflow either way, but the monthly losses have to be weighed against the cost of going insolvent and losing the hardware.
Crypto-miners are switching to AI token farming when bitcoin is low. They have compute that's both installed and powered, so why not do what pays better?
I think you're right, it's counterintuitive but less competition means less rewards to share for those who keep mining. Though transaction fees / hour shouldn't decrease, maybe your share of that is bigger.
It's the other way around, and there's no obligation to even carry transactions when mining, although it's incentivised through fees.
Your mining rate is simply your hash rate vs the hash difficulty.
Conceptually, it's analoglous to rolling random numbers in (0,1) until you get to a number smaller than 1/X, where X is large.
How long it takes you to do that, isn't dependent on how many other people are also trying to do that, if you get 1 hit per hour, then lots of other people getting hits doesn't actually stop you getting your 1 hit per hour.
Now, that's not quite the whole truth, as there's a small amount of time needed for propagation of the previous chain, but with an average hit globally of ~10 minutes, that's not actually a big factor.
What could happen to incentivise people is increased fees if blocks get less common due to dropped miners, there'd be more competition to get into blocks if they start filling up.
That combined with the fixed costs such as depreciation as othes mentioned, keeps the risk of this form of failure to a minimum.
> it takes less than one second to go through
Like Bitcoin used to be before someone had the brilliant idea of destroy the possibility of zero-confirmation transactions on-chain with Replace-by-fee transactions
> Except people wanting to do more than 15 transactions a minute
It's more like 7 transactions per second, which is still absolute crap, but that was after the original Bitcoin project was kidnapped. There aren't such limitations in the original Bitcoin (forked as Bitcoin Cash)
> Or that to scale everyone would need to store a petabyte size blockchain
That is addressed in the whitepaper (SPVs and pruning)
Except for the inevitable and obvious fact that proof-of-work creates a self-sustaining primary incentive for energy waste more pernicious than has ever been seen in any other financial or commercial enterprise, obliterating any hope of having energy that is too cheap to meter.
Mining Bitcoin requires both hardware and electricity, and the cheapest electricity is solar. There isn't any severe scarcity of the raw materials to make solar panels, or of sunlight, so Bitcoin miners can buy as many solar panels as they want and it would only increase the economies of scale for producing them for other purposes too.
Solar has inconsistent output. There is none at night and it varies based on weather during the day. Mining hardware wants a fixed constant amount of power. The logical thing for miners to do is to somewhat overbuild the amount of generation they need and then sell any surplus to the grid, and sell to the grid during the day and buy it back at night. The same incentives hold if the miners and the generators are two different parties, and the result is to increase the amount of generation capacity by more than the amount of consumption and have "too cheap to meter" during periods of above-average generation. (You were never going to get "too cheap to meter" during periods when generation is low and demand is high.) And even during short periods when demand significantly outstrips supply, then their incentive is to stop operating those few days out of the year because the spot price of electricity makes mining unprofitable then, which allows the generation capacity installed to do mining be used to support the rest of the grid and inhibits the price of electricity from rising above the point where mining becomes unprofitable even for people who already have mining hardware. It's basically a buffer that buys electricity when it's cheap and sells when it's expensive.
Bitcoin has a volatile price. When the price is high, miners buy hardware and increase or pay someone else to increase generation capacity. When the price declines, the mining hardware becomes idle but the power generation capacity still generates fungible electricity that can be used for any other purpose. The result is that miners pay to install a lot of generation capacity during the boom, and have the incentive to prioritize investing in more generation rather than newer/more efficient mining hardware because it's the thing that's still worth something if the price declines, and that generation capacity then gets offloaded into the grid during the bust, with the result that grid prices go up some during the boom and down by even more during the bust. By the next boom some of the generation added last time has already been sold to non-miners or locked into long-term contracts so now they're back to adding new capacity again.
"Incentive to fund increases in generation capacity but then not use all of it" has what effect on average prices?
Now compare it to the annual energy use for the creation/printing of money and funding of infinite wars due to the Federal Reserve having the ability to print money out of thin air at the cost of future generations.
The difference is that the quantity of what is being supplied is a factor with supply of oil/gold/grain/etc.
For mining it is just necessary that it happens.
The amount of work in mining is way higher than is required to prevent another party from being able to overwhelm the Blockchain. It is that high because of the subsidy of the mining reward means if Bitcoin has a high value the reward is worth a lot.
This is factored in with the halving of the reward. Either the price will increase exponentially or the mining reward will drop. Causing mining to reduce to those who can be profitable from fees. Which rewards those who can mine most efficiently, it becomes a supply and demand calculation in a market where there are relatively low barriers for competitors.
There is an interesting missing link in the feedback cycle with Bitcoin though - the same amount is produced regardless, supply does not contract with demand.
There is no reason why a single data management system cannot be built that can do everything that either a file system or a database can do (I have been building one).
It is an object store called Didgets (i.e. Data Widgets). Each Didget has a specific type. One type is used to hold unstructured data like a file does. These Didgets are unsurprisingly called File Didgets. Other types of Didgets can hold lists (used to create hierarchical folders, music play lists, photo albums, etc.).
Others hold sets of Key/Value pairs which are used to create a tagging system for other Didgets or columns in a relational table.
Using a variety of Didgets, I have been able to create hierarchical file systems where a simple query can find one or thousands of files instantly out of 200 million+ based on the values of any tags attached.
In the same container (called a pod), it can store tens of thousands of relational tables; each one capable of having 100,000+ columns and billions of rows.
The system is 'multi-model' so it could manage hierarchical data, relational data, graph data, or anything managed by a NoSQL system.
How long until the AI companies start charging more to people who use AI services, but live in areas that do things like this?
NIMBY causes energy prices to go up in areas that won't allow drilling, refining, nuclear or nat gas development, or power lines. When will the same happen for things like AI services?
AI results are generally easy to transport - just a few bytes over some fibre. Electric is harder to ship, there is only so much you can put in a wire (even high voltage DC). Widgets (car parts...) are even harder to ship and take longer which is why big things often get final assembly locally.
Honestly would be kind of cool if a locality actually had that much power. It could lead to an enclave of people who still value thinking for themselves. In practice I doubt bigcorps would turn down the customers.
Lol the corpos having too much power over consumers is because the local residents wont submit?
You assume the company cant charge higher anyway out of the goodness of their hearts?
This is what unregulated capitalism looks like with no govt oversight.
An important element that Willison left out of his definition of 'good code' is efficient!
Software has an amazing multiplier effect. It can be copied to millions of machines and run billions of times each day. Code that wastes resources (time, memory, disk space, electricity, etc.) can become incredibly expensive to run, even if it was vibe coded in a day for a few dollars.
Has anyone taken a serious look at all the code being spit out by AI with regards to how efficient it is?
AI is assisting you. It'll write efficient code if you guide it to write efficient code. You're not a hapless victim of ai written code.
To give you a concrete examples. Recently pretext library made waves. I looked at the code and noticed that isCJK could possibly faster.
So I spent 30 minutes TELLING claude to write a benchmark and implement several different, hopefully faster, versions. Some claude came up with by itself and some were based on my guidance.
The original isCJK, also written by AI (I assume), was fast. It wasn't obviously slow like lots of human JavaScript code I see.
Claude did implement a faster version.
Could I do the same thing (write multiple implementations and benchmark them) without Claude? Yes.
Would I do it? Probably not. It would take significantly longer than 30 min. and I don't have that much time to spend on isCJK.
Would I achieve as good result? Probably no. The big win came from replacing for .. of with regular for loop. Something that didn't occur to me but Claude did it because I instructed it to "come up with ideas to speed it up". I'm an expert in writing fast code but I don't know everything and I all good ideas. AI knows everything, you just need to poke it the right way.
What worries me is that good, efficient code will no longer be widely shared like before. Everyone will just write their own inefficient version of a general purpose function or library because Claude or some other AI coder made it cheap and easy.
That is great advice if you set out to build a profitable business on day one.
But it seems to me that there are many projects out there like mine. You start building something because it scratches an itch you have. You think it would be fun to build. You keep adding features and fine tuning the code because you want to see something work better and/or faster than anything else.
Then one day you look at it and say: "I wonder if other people will think this thing is as useful as I do (and be willing to pay something for it)?"
It might still be a work in progress, but it does a number of very useful things, so you now have to put on your marketing hat or team up with someone who is good at that.
Jobs and Wozniak proved (at least in the 70s) that a great technical founder could team up with a brilliant marketer and build a huge company from next to nothing.
I seriously wonder if that can happen today. As a technical founder, I have tried to find a marketing partner for years. Every time it has failed miserably as each one proved unable to move the needle.
In my case, it could be the product, but I wonder who has seen success in this day and age.
This is exactly the problem I've been sitting with for some time now. Every platform I tried to find a marketing partner on was either dead, full of bots, or just a generic co-founder matching app with no real skin in the game.
I'm actually building something about this, would love to stay in touch and share it with you when it's live. Might be exactly what you've been looking for.
I once knew a guy who was disabled and walked on crutches. Jobs got mad at him for being late to a meeting, and the guy replied "well someone parked in the handicapped parking spot, and it took me awhile to walk from a normal parking spot.
No joke, Jobs looks him (a disabled person) directly in the eye, and says "oh, that was me; I think the country built an excess of disabled parking spaces after WW2." To the disabled guy!!!
A pardon is only a protection against a 'vengeful administration' if that administration is not your party.
Pardons are only a miscarriage of justice if those pardoned don't share your ideology.
reply