Lots of bold, unsubstantiated claims. I think every time there is a big peak, or a big valley, some percentage of people are always peddling "but this is different"
> I think every time there is a big peak, or a big valley, some percentage of people are always peddling "but this is different"
When stocks crashed in 1929, it was different. In the US we got the New Deal, which still exists in some form. In Germany we got fascism and then a divided Germany for decades. The 1929 crash had effects felt to this day. The DJIA did not recover its 1929 level (not inflation adjusted) until 1954.
The kings and queens of Europe could point to how things never changed over the past millennia, and moved forward as they always had, until Charles I had his head lopped off in 1649. Then things began changing.
It's useful to read the history of the stock market prior to WW2. It was a casino back then. Our experience post WW2 probably creates a bias. We're used to the stock market stability. But it has some serious structural problem now (e.g. low/0 interest rate). I would not be surprised if it is heading back into casino mode.
Sure game-changing big changes exist. But when someone says "this is different", it's almost certainly not different. Both of those statements are true and I see no reason to think we're not in the latter case right now.
The true extent of their relationship is unknown and not really being given much scrutiny in the media. From the one, reasonable piece of reporting on it, there was an overlap in staff between Epstein’s operation and the Gates foundation, the two organizations were in regular contact through 2017, and Gates has a venture fund with the man named as the executor of Epstein’s estate:
> The true extent of their relationship is unknown and not really being given much scrutiny in the media
Or - and here is a crazy idea - there is not much to dig up.
Obviously if you hang too much on r/conspiracy you will see crazy angles to anything. (For HN readers who do not: I encourage you to have a look, it's ... interesting).
Sure, Gates changed his story from having “no business relationship” with Epstein to actually having met him many times, oh and also the two shared members of their inner circle, and I guess, yeah, they worked on a proposed multibillion dollar deal from which Epstein would have handsomely profited, all after his underage prostitution charge was known to Gates, but really, there’s nothing else to dig up.
Despite your insinuation, I don’t spend any time on conspiracy subreddits. But if you truly think the entire extent of what was going on is out in the open, I admire your credulity.
I'll never understand this sentiment. You don't have to have alerts from slack outside of business hours. Or respond in general. If I responded or looked at my messages every time I got one, I'd never get work done... so I simply ignore them until I am taking a break or otherwise at a good stopping point. It's not that hard.
This seems like there isn't buy-in to the OKRs across your employer. My company does OKRs and it's taken seriously by VPs as well as the devs. Here, it's very reasonable to say no to something (and have that be respected) because it's not contributing to your team's OKRs. If it's a VP or something and insists it needs to be done then that means the OKRs need to be updated to reflect the nature of this work.
Took me a minute to grok this, but I think you mean, message bus clients can send 'any old shit' and the broker will happily queue it?
A lot of the more 'managed' (abstracted) clients in the statically typed world deal with this by structuring queues by the object type/interface. A bad actor could probably circumvent this if they really wanted, but for normal usage it will at least ensure that objects sent are of the expected type.
This means that in real-world usage, this isn't an issue.
The fix to A is client side filtering. That can be hard to set up if you don't enforce it to begin with. I'm currently dealing with poor/no client side validation at work and it does become a complete fucking pain dealing with poor upstream schema hygiene
I don't see why the second point is a bad thing, at all. Message buses are meant to provide a non urgent abstraction layer to simplify the relationship between producers and consumers (if you need urgency, don't use a message bus). It simplifies load balancing the consumer stage and doesn't impose any limits on producers (many of which can be clients released into the wild).
A good pattern is to use a schema to verify you're sending valid data in the producer (at the very least, in a unit test, if not at runtime) - for example, the Confluent wrapped Kafka ships with a schema registry and painless Avro based Kafka producers
If overhead in the producer is stopping you from validating each record at creation time, then you can validate downstream, so long as your consumers agree to only consume the validated data.
> Couples producers/consumers to the bus (unless you put in the extra work to wrap it in a very simple service)
This is an area where adding a simple layer of abstraction is a good thing - most times, all you want is something like a `Send<T>`/`Send(obj)` method, which really will translate fairly universally across message busses.
I used such a thing recently, switching out RabbitMQ for MQTT - all I really had to do was point to a new implementation of the interface!
A synchronous call would have failed when the operator issued the request, and the onus is on the operator to find alternate ways of contacting the police.
Aren't you supposed to check all the possible errors in golang anyway? How's that any different than java code being littered with error handling code?
Except it's possible to miss checking errors in golang (accidentally either by not assigning the return value, or by overwriting a previously assigned error). Whereas in a language with exceptions, this is not possible unless by explicitly adding code to ignore exceptions.
Do you ever see golang code that handles errors returned from fmt.Println?
I think I agree with you - I'm just trying to understand the other perspective from someone that seems to think not having exceptions is an improvement. I've mostly worked using java and go and to be honest I think I prefer exceptions because you should (almost) always check error codes in go anyway, and if you forget, you just made debugging much more difficult.
You think this guy is a hateful hipster, but most of what he says probably resonates with most software vets. To me, it's mostly against the REST zealots who demand REST is done in a very particular manner. I've seen companies with a very stable, robust RPC framework that had a small faction of REST zealots who were extremely against it because it didn't do things according to REST. It didn't matter to them how stable it was or how well it worked.
Also, REST is relatively not popular - what percentage of the world's APIs use REST do you think?
TBH, you're the one coming off like the hateful hipster to me.
To counter anecdote with anecdote, I've had no issues with coinbase and have found them pleasant to use. That includes transferring to gdax/selling/withdrawing, etc.
You can’t counter a bad experience with a neutral one man.
Example:
Ann Rule was on a first name basis with Ted Bundy before he was caught. He didn’t murder her or any of her friends once. Its probably fine to take a car ride from him.
I've never had a single problem with Coinbase either. Most complaints seem to be from brand new signups getting delayed, people failing the AML/KYC checks.
My USD withdrawals always show up in my bank account 2 days later.
My account is 4 years old, was verified, 2FA setup, and bought/sold without issue 4 years ago.
Recently logged in to find that previously verified ID documents were somehow wiped out and my account became restricted. Reverified ID without issue, but account still restricted. Been 13 days and nada from their support save for an automated response.
My account is over 3 months old. They took my money and successfully gave me my tiny bit of ETH and BTC, but for some reason my litecoin transaction is stuck in the ether.
That's annoying then, maybe the run up in LTC triggered a new tier of verification or they really are that far behind. I'm sure you'll get it eventually but if you're looking to flip it now you can't yet.
If you're not buying with the intent to hold, I recommend depositing USD to their exchange GDAX. Fees are lower and you can sell/withdraw immediately.
So? Services that operate on money shouldn't just have an SLA where is works fine for some people. When you want a lot of nines, "it worked for me a few times" is not enough.
Probably should be completing AML/KYC checks before funding the account, but funny how there's never any issue with that not happening in a speedy amount of time...
There are hundreds of similar complaints about Coinbase on their sub-reddit just within the last week or so, many including support ticket numbers. People are getting pretty freaked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/coinbase
FYI this is identical to what happened on Mt Gox. It was easy to send money in, but getting more than 0.5 BTC out became quite difficult.
That said, it seems closer to the truth to say that they're simply under load. But it's hard not to wonder. There's no way to know there's a problem until it's too late.
It's a good reminder to keep your coins off Coinbase.
> It's a good reminder to keep your coins off Coinbase.
I'm finding that keeping coins off of Coinbase is easier to do than keeping cash off of Coinbase. It's fast and cheap to transfer cryptocoins to Coinbase, but takes me days to add cash.
Yep. I follow the ecosystem closely (not invested, just fascinated by it) and there are an incredible number of complaints about coinbase in general, and their atrocious support in particular.
Coinbase has said they've scaled their support team 2x in recent weeks. Surely that's not an easy feat and speaks to the sort of volumes they are handling at the moment.
I've used Coinbase since 2013 but I had a very important transaction simply disappear about a year and a half ago (despite being confirmed 10s of times) until I showed support that the transaction definitely went through. No explanation whatsoever. Just showed up a day after they replied to me.
You and I go to the bank and get two loans backed by the same reserve. We party and spend those new dollars which in part didn't exist before. Then we work to repay the bank and make the debt and credit columns agree in the books. Btw, the money of salaries we get could be borrowed too.
Another shot at it with a thought experiment. Everybody goes to the bank and borrows 10k every month. The bank never asks them back for the first five years. Result? Inflation, possibly hyperinflation. Same as if they would be printing money (and they'll won't get anything back when the five years are past.)
