Show newer

@2ck one potential issue is that many people would not want to use self driving cars which are merely maximizing for the number of lives as this can lead to situations where your own car would sacrifice you in order to save other people (regardless of who or what is to blame for the accident). There are many other such edge cases but the issue is rarely as black and white as simply optimizing a discrete variable.

@freemo So, I haven't traded at all since around 2016-2018 (used to do it manually on binance). Recently, I was thinking of trading based mostly on "trading signals" using natural language processing and simply selling/buying based around trends, "hype" or Elon's tweets, lol.

Perhaps setting up a python server using the binance API so that it is always running and when there's movement in something related to one coin (for example SEC filing against lbry) then execute a trade before the news has had a chance to hit the markets.

Is this too basic?

It feels too basic to have any chance of success.

@freemo do you have any advice for learning how to make a successful trading bot?

If I recall correctly you tooted about your trading strategy a while back but a lot of it went over my head such as the stuff on quantum wavelet transform.


My reaction to watching the SEC suing LBRY but then remembering they're a bunch of idiots that don't understand crypto:

John's spicy take of the day:

The words "educate yourself" do not constitute an argument, and claiming that "it's not your responsibility" to teach someone only further perpetuates their ignorance from your perspective.

If it's nobody's responsibility to teach this person what you think they should know, they will never learn it, especially if they disagree with the arguments being made for reasons beyond the surface. Addressing axioms is key for finding common ground, and this tactic shuts down the conversation well before this can occur.

It seems like it is only used by people who are incapable of adequately articulating their own views; specifically with the intention of rejecting other viewpoints with the presupposition that they are correct and the other person is ignorant. This precludes actual discussion and the possibility that you hear new perspectives and potentially consider your opposition as rational actors, rather than fools.

(Haven't seen this on qoto, but my sister started using this rhetoric so I thought I'd talk about it)

Which by extension means most of us working in tech companies are probably useless in the grand scheme of things :)

Show thread

I've been working for a well-known tech company for the last 9 months as an intern and one thing stands out to me as a sad and stress-inducing revelation: most people don't contribute to the financial value of the company. I'd say about 20% of the people, most of whom are hardcore smart engineers deliver 90%+ of the value. Notice that value != Work so I'm not claiming that they do most of the work, simply that they do most of the complex, difficult and important work that actually determines our position in the market.

From Wikipedia:

Law of triviality is C. Northcote Parkinson's 1957 argument that people within an organization commonly or typically give disproportionate weight to trivial issues.[1] Parkinson provides the example of a fictional committee whose job was to approve the plans for a nuclear power plant spending the majority of its time on discussions about relatively minor but easy-to-grasp issues, such as what materials to use for the staff bike shed, while neglecting the proposed design of the plant itself, which is far more important and a far more difficult and complex task.



Tusky: Censoring people

Me: Please don’t do this, censorship harms marginalized people the most

Tusky: Yeah right, Nazi

Google: Censors Tusky

Tusky: NOOOO I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY IS THIS HAPPENING???

@jmw150 Ah I see. Well, I agree that there is a misunderstanding in the Rust community regarding "safety" as many of them seem unaware of formal verification tools and even things like Valgrind which anybody can easily use in C. Not to mention, a lot of the old-school memory bugs are caught by the OS (at least in Linux kernel) compared to 10 years ago. So, all in all, I still think Rust has cool things to offer such as cargo but strong typing and memory safety is not particularly novel. I think a lot of this comes from the often-quoted "70% of MS vulnerabilities were due to memory leaks". And, I think it's important to differentiate between Microsoft and the rest of the world as in this scenario it's not appropriate to extrapolate and say "most software errors are caused by memory leaks" which many people in the Rust community seem to think.

I think for any serious programmer that statement should ring a bell as obviously wrong since clearly in GC languages this is not even an issue, we can see that actually most bugs are due to logical errors in the program, not actually accounting for edge cases, changing requirements, breaking compatibility in modules, or purely dumb programmer errors, not necessarily memory.

Having said all of that. I still think Rust feels ergonomic and nice to use.

@thunder@tilde.zone @freemo I remember seeing job postings from Visa when they first started recruiting block chain devs and asking for people with "at least 8 years of experience with ethereum blockchain" back in 2018 when ETH had only been around for about 3 years... Apparently they had an internal policy that meant they could only hire people with at least 8 years of experience for senior roles .

Part #0: Darth Vader voicer changer

Idea: let's see if we can get an SPW2430 working with the RP2040 in pure C to record and playback an altered version of the original sound wave.

RT @SystemCrafters
What are your recommendations for the things every new #Emacs user should learn to get the most out of it?

Another way to think about it: what do you wish someone had taught you about Emacs when you just started learning it?

Please RT to help get more responses!

Proofs about the correctness of C code are now much easier. There is a software tool chain using "Verifiable C" to make systems safer.

Here is a tutorial on it, and general proof code writing. It is fully verified in Coq.

softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.

@jmw150 great link in general, thanks for sharing. I learned a bit of Coq during an undergrad logic course and a Haskell course. Reading the titles and contents of the other books in the series vaguely triggers some memories although in reality I'm pretty sure I've forgotten most of it. Sometimes, I wish I could focus more on formal systems but the problem is that in my head I need to be able to see tangible results relatively quickly to keep engaged with something which is why I lean more towards embedded systems and ML rather than more theoretic aspects of SWE like formal validation and proofs. Nonetheless, I can appreciate it from a far as a very fascinating field.

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.