> - There's actual standard logic for remotely-existing objects vs. just RPC
Cap'n Proto is an object-capability system that very much has a uniform representation of remote objects. Object references are first-class types. You can send someone a remote object reference, embedded in some other message (e.g. params or return value of another RPC). When they release that reference, you get notified that the object can now be cleaned up.
Is there something else you were looking for here that Cap'n Proto doesn't do?
Not meaning to argue, just curious to understand. (I'm the author of Cap'n Proto.)
> - An object implementing multiple interfaces retains the same identity (niche thing but useful in my use cases)
FWIW Cap'n Proto objects can implement multiple interfaces. That said, identity of remote objects is a surprisingly complicated subject, and at present it's not necessarily possible to tell whether two references point to the same object.
> - Somewhat larger scope of supported languages (very important that I don't have to start from scratch in few projects)
This is definitely a limitation of Cap'n Proto right now.
> - Established patterns for discovery, naming, and few other cases (pretty much DIY on RPC systems)
There is definitely a lot CORBA does here that Cap'n Proto doesn't. Cap'n Proto itself only defines object lifetimes within the context of an RPC session. Persistence and long-term object identity are left to a higher layer.
Was not aware that Cap'n Proto RPC got object references over network, need to update my knowledge some day (unfortunately for it, it's also not used by any project I need to interact with)
Persistence wasn't really an issue for me, though I am fully aware how popular in many ways it was to look there.
But ready made naming and discovery are somewhat important when:
- I don't want to mess with details of where specific endpoint is etc - with easily available open source CORBA code, I can setup single CORBA Naming service and provide reference to it from all other components, and while I could do it myself, there's a bit of ease to have a pre-existing IDL and basic "initial naming reference" I can utilise
- discovery is more the use of "Trader" service after establishing the naming part.
Essentially, I have few projects where I want to move the current hodge-podge of hard coded parts into a setup where components can be auto detected and auto configured dynamically with minimal effort from me, and with as wide language support as I can get (including Ada and Common Lisp)
He hasn't and he's performing at a higher level than ever, but I don't think that's what you're asking. You are looking for permission to be normal and like the guy, as the majority of the general public does, but you will not receive it on this site. It's now just geezers upvoting Alzheimers research, articles from The Atlantic telegraphing the party line and the occasional "I rewrote this thing that already works in Rust". I'd suggest you get on X for tech news instead.
In case someone is interested in shorting Tether, thanks to DeFi this can now be done without explicit exposure to a crypto exchange or dangerous BTC shorts. For the uninitiated, I think this is also a good example for the kind of craziness that is possible now:
Deposit a "good" stable coin (for what counts as good in this space, which is USDC) on Aave or Compound and borrow Tether against it (75% and 80% loan-to-value respectively). You can now either send it to an exchange (e.g. Kraken) and swap USDT to real USD, or go to curve.fi and swap USDT for more USDC and deposit back to Aave or Compound. Repeat until either 4x/5x leverage (theoretical max) or your personal risk tolerance is reached. Remember to service the position by depositing more USDC occasionally (otherwise will be liquidated with penalty). As of this writing, variable interest rate is ~3.5%, fixed interest rate is 11%.
Scenarios:
- USDT goes to zero, buy as many as needed for scrap, pay back the loan, free the original stablecoins, sell for real USD and make between 1.75x to 4x/5x, depending on which route you chose above.
- Both USDT and USDC go to zero, you lose between 25 to 100%, depending on the route you chose above.
- There's a USDT shortage (real or somehow engineered) and it goes way above $1 causing your position to be force-liquidated, causing you lose between 25 to 100%, depending on the route you chose above.
- Only USDC falls below peg (temporarily or permanently) and you get force-liquidated (25 to 100% loss)
- You forget to service the debt or a spike in the variable interest rate causes you to get force-liquidated (5% penalty)
- Tether never goes to zero and you keep paying 3.5% interest (variable)
- Smart contract hack / Ethereum shuts down, you lose up to 100%
- Unkown scenarios
While there's no explicit exposure to a crypto exchange, there's still the implicit exposure to Coinbase/Circle via USDC. DAI offers no escape here, since its 50% collateralised by USDC (the other 50% crypto would likely be in serious turmoil in case USDT collapses potentially losing its peg as well).
In spite of this, I think this is a considerably better way to profit from a Tether collapse then the much more dangerous route of shorting BTC futures, or shorting via an unregulated crypto exchange where there's no guarantee that they'll pay or even be operational in such an event.
I like this strategy, but would seriously not recommend it to anyone that isn’t willing to lose everything they put in. This isn’t a spot play where you still have the underlying crypto asset.
Yes, but the British Empire was a thing, which is why "white" can be mocked and ridiculed in ways unimaginable to any other ethnicity. Science tells us so...
Unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments will get you banned here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN, we'd be grateful.
Surly noone in the orient ever expressed such opinions, least of which the japanese --known throughout asia and the world for their love and admiration of other races -- which is why the west is in desperate need to turn the lookingglass around and cleanse itself from all forms of racism, which it is uniquely capable of doing. Other races needn't play in this game.
One could say that this is merely the continuation of chauvinistic anglocentrism by other means, but to do so would embarass self-professed "anti-racists", hence white supermacy gets a new lease on life deep within the liberal mindset that nominally opposes it.
“japanese--known throughout asia and the world for their love and admiration of other races”
Tell that to anyone actually living in Asia and most will absolutely scoff at you. There is too much historical baggage about what horrifying things the Japanese did to other Asians during its colonial era (early to mid 20th century), especially with regards to Korea and China. Japanese resentment is still highly noticeable in countries where they colonized and raped them.
To be fair, wasn't Japan invaded first? A few times.
The "West" has had the longest record of invading other nations, forcibly "opening ports", or just generally intruding into and screwing up countries in other ways besides war.
The Opium Wars are one of the more appalling examples. Literally invading a country because they don't want to buy your narcotics? What the fuck.
How tiresome. Every time a conversation regarding this topic is discussed, we always have someone arrive to graciously remind us how Asian People Are The Real Racists.
Im no expert, but from what Ive read, some of the imperialistic ideas and hiarchy of races ideas in Japan do have their roots in a historical period where Japan's Eliets were looking to Europe for a model of how to be a part of the world.
The democratic party is the party of the affluent and sacrosant, so it's no surprise that they opt to make a million poor families suffer so one injustice wouldn't slide.
Their fragile world view remains intact, while none of their constituents pay the price.
Amazon has pending lawsuits about this in multiple countries. Meat packers are staring down lawsuits about this across several states. These lawsuits cover millions of employees.
If you are trying to argue that there was just a single instance of this kind of offense, you're in a world of fantasy.
And it's a tossup as to whether they're going to get more from the lawsuits or from government assistance--both are going to be woefully inadequate.
yes, how dare these business keep the wheels on society during a crisis. They should be punished. What's a thousand kids going hungry, but a small price to pay for all of society's ills perfectly adjudicated.
Exactly my thoughts. I thought this place had become more negative, but I'm still shocked at the results. Perhaps it's time to move on and find more positive technology communities. You don't happen to know any?
I have pretty much moved on from HN. It used to be the place to learn first hand from people doing amazing things in tech, these days it seems to be a nest of negative nut jobs whining about how hard their life is while holding 6 figure desk jobs.
Yes I know you are not supposed to mourn for the old HN, but I do. I feel like HN should purge the last 5 years of posts and start again.
This sounds like something a soviet comission would declare after an accident. What went wrong and how was it corrected? You needn't know, it has been corrected.
More importantly, there are explanations from pollsters about what they changed and they speak openly about remaining possible sources of uncertainty/error. See e.g. the quotes in this article: https://www.newsweek.com/how-pollsters-changed-their-game-af...
All of this is a quick google search away, and anyone who has actually paid attention to polling knows exactly how polling has changed in the past 4 years. It's literally impossible to read anything on this topic without knowing that polling firms openly talk about methodology changes. Therefore, your original comment was either intentionally misleading or profoundly uninformed.
NB: You can absolutely agree or disagree with their methodological choices, especially around "shy Trump effect" and whether Trafalgar-like "what do your neighbors think?" questions make sense.
But even if you disagree with their choices, _it's plainly untrue to say their attitude is "you needn't know". To the contrary, they're quite open about how their polling methodology has changed._
Are you willing to defend with evidence and reason your initial claim that pollsters haven't explained what they have/haven't done to try and correct polling methodology? Or are we just going to name-call like we're 12 year olds on a playground/irrelevant partisan zombies in the internet comment section?
I used to think Apple has the best approach to diversity, but this presentation really showed the folly inherent to the entire project. You realize that what you just saw was a cast of exclusively white men and women gushing over a cast of exclusively colored models? All the engineers and executives vs. nice-to-look at minorities. This is not a new social arrangement, and certainly not one Apple would stand for, and yet inadvertently this is is the image that they've created.
The pictures themselves are telling to. They are all weird, lower power poses. Could you imagine Tim Cook or another speaker striking a pose like that? This is how the executives like to be seen: https://www.apple.com/leadership/
Sadly it has come to the point where any criticism of diversity for any reason is sacrilegious, but people would be wise to think twice what the outcome of these policies is. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
