Is it the expected outcome? I was under the initial impression that the author also noted:
> Overall, this may have been a bit of a disappointment to those who expected to use Generics as a powerful option to optimize Go code, as it is done in other systems languages.
where the implementation would smartly inline code and have performance no worse than doing so manually. I quite appreciated the call to attention that there's a nonobvious embedded footgun.
(As a side note, this design choice is quite interesting, and I appreciate the author diving into their breakdown and thoughts on it!)
I've considered building something like this as well! I think something cool would be to integrate "predictions" or modeling with this. For example, for people with consistent salaries, this can be used to model financial goals, etc. Thoughts are welcome!
Yeah, so for BeanHub, when you push a commit, the system will capture the accounting book into SQL database. Taking from there, I can imagine there are many data prediction model can be applied to the ingested data. I am also thinking to support "CI job" feature (run a task when you push a new commit), not for building software but for your accounting book. So even if it's not supported by the system officially, it's still possible to build your prediction model.
Out of my element here, but would be curious to see if this is something solvable in firmware (now open-sourced!) or if it's a hardware problem to begin with (power states? etc).
Edit: Also curious if this issue is generally a hardware or firmware issue in most laptops, or if it's a mix of both.
Could be caused by Modern Standby (by default newer laptops remain on even when nominally off, which has been known to cause issues). Some more details here:
Well, not quite. It has inherent value since fiat is guaranteed to be backed by the full faith and credit of the backing nation. That is, by holding fiat, you trust that the country issuing that fiat doesn't default (and will hence guarantee that value). I don't see a similar parallel with crypto, though I'd love to be corrected.
> you trust that the country issuing that fiat doesn't default
Doesn't default on what? A dollar isn't a claim on a percentage of the productive output of the USA, it's just a dollar. If dollars aren't worth anything, it's not worth anything.
Crypto is backed by the strength of the network and the algorithms that run the network.
As far as real-world value, all that's needed is for the value to be "bootstrapped" if you will. When ethereum was first released all it took was for someone to say "I'll buy your 1 Eth for X dollars" and boom the value of Eth is bootstrapped because we can attach the value of an Eth coin to a real world item.
After that bootstrapping, the value of today's Eth is governed by supply/demand and the value it had yesterday.
Since I can't exchange a dollar for a piece of faith and credit, it's not really backed in the traditional sense of being a backed asset.
Neither is it backed by the US military or the ability to pay taxes.
The fact that the dollar is in widespread use in a country that has a track record of stability, a well-managed economy, trusted institutions and a strong military all mean that if you want to put your faith into an arbitrary and made up asset, the US dollar is an excellent choice; but its value is a collective illusion nontheless.
Intrinsic value in this context would mean something's value outside of its exchange value. Both fiat and Bitcoin have arguably very little to no intrinsic value within that definition.
The central banks of Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Peru, Poland, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe have all failed to stop hyperinflation.
You're conflating the ability to do something with actually doing that something. Also, what's your point with regards to inflation and fiat currency? That seems tangential to the parent comment.
The conflation is appropriate as the original clam is that fiat currency is backed by trust that the nation won't default. If the nation defaults in both cases, they are equivalent.
> The central banks of Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Peru, Poland, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe have all failed to stop hyperinflation.
Which of those were central banks of nations where debts including both private and public debt were denominated principally in fiat whose monetary policy was controlled by the central bank?
Some of them were pre-fiat (gold standard), and some were dealing with situations were obligations were largely in externally-controlled fiat (e.g., USD.)
Hyperinflation is caused by very limited supply. If there is not enough food around people will give everything for it. It doesn't matter what the currency is and how much you print or not.
What could the central bank of zimbabwe have done to stop inflation? I agree that central banks can almost always stop inflation...as long as they are controlling a reserve currency that actually has international value. Otherwise there is actually very little a central bank can do when your currency isn't used for imports, exports, international trade etc and foreign dollars/euros/RNB are needed to do almost any economical meaningful transaction.
They could have stopped flooding the country with Zimbabwean dollars and hyperinflation would have stopped immediately. Of course, the central bank of Zimbabwe was never independent from the government, but that doesn't change the fact that whoever was in charge of the monetary policy could have stopped hyperinflation at any time, had they wanted to.
All 3 of them are terrible! The handwritten one is really bad, I'd actually prefer Comic Sans. The fixed width font looks very inhomogeneous. The sans-serif is okay, but the serious "a"s clash with the playful style of the drawings.
Supporters do get access to PDFs of his draft books. These are rewrites of his original book on tensor calculus [1]. I worked through most of the original and I thought it was quite good.
> Overall, this may have been a bit of a disappointment to those who expected to use Generics as a powerful option to optimize Go code, as it is done in other systems languages.
where the implementation would smartly inline code and have performance no worse than doing so manually. I quite appreciated the call to attention that there's a nonobvious embedded footgun.
(As a side note, this design choice is quite interesting, and I appreciate the author diving into their breakdown and thoughts on it!)