Thanks! I didn't know about TypeID (and I thought I'd searched thoroughly).
The formalization interests me. Shame they shifted the UUID 2 bits right. Otherwise our implementations would be almost compatible (only the last 2 bits of the 26th character + the last 3 characters would differ). In my next clean codebase, I may use TypeID and append a 15-bit checksum.
You did not share a link to a blog post. The title was "Effective Haskell is a hands-on practical book way to learn Haskell. No math or formal CS needed" and it linked to the site advertising your book for sale. I removed it because we don't get good discussions out of ads.
I shared the story as I remember it. Memory is imperfect. It's been years since I deleted my account, and I don't have the luxury of access to server or moderation logs.
What I do remember unambiguously is being an active member of the site, contributing regularly and in good faith, being accused of spamming, and the general feeling of hostility that I got from the site.
You got a DM and email with the title and URL when your story was removed. This would've been 2023-08-03 with the subject "Your story has been edited by a moderator", if you want to look back: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/blob/86e1d0b6ac6bac5210...
But you're correct on the second part, there isn't a level of activity that entitles anyone to post a sales page with nothing to discuss on it. Your activity was taken into account, though. Typically if a new user's first activity is to post an ad I'll also ban the site or user. I understand the rules aren't as permissive as you wanted, but ads don't start good discussions.
IMO, the lobste.rs admin's assertion that the post had "nothing to discuss" is a misjudgment that undercuts the rest of their rationalization. My guess is that they're looking for a win on technicality, instead of addressing the myriad of concerns raised elsewhere in this thread.
I don't know why you think I want a "technical win" from you, but I'm not seeking your approval. I corrected your mistake about the URL and the policy, like I corrected the author's mistake about what I removed. If you and other sites prefer different policies, it's no skin off my nose.
> The government’s position is that I should have known I couldn’t trade stocks I’d publicly praised—for some unspecified period of time. I didn’t lie, I simply traded too soon.
The part Left seems to be responding to in his article is:
> defendant LEFT often built his positions using inexpensive, short-dated options contracts that would expire within zero to five trading days and submitted limit orders to close his positions as soon as the Targeted Security reached a certain price.
A pump and dump has to be false, misleading or deceptive. This is not the case here.
Edit: I have now read some of the complaint. This is just sec fraud, which is consistent with what the article is claiming. "The opposite of insider trading" ie trading in the direction of the advice you're giving.
Gov says the statements were material, false, with intent. If they can't prove false to the level of being a material statement they will lose.
Edit2: This comes right up to the line, whether it's material to have false/non-statements about your intentions. There's another case that will come up if you research this about whether intentions are material.
There's a much higher-ROI way to encode these, write a test that checks the current date. Maybe a very large project would prefer not to fail everyone's build for it, but this is fine for a couple dozen developers.
It must be part of a larger marketing push; their boss(?) appeared on the Odd Lots podcast a couple days ago to talk about this work: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scott-kupors-new-plan-... He spent a lot of time promoting this new National Design Studio's attempt to attract tech works for 2-year commitments to drop into existing orgs, which is basically how the 18F PIF program worked before it was dissolved earlier this year. Perhaps abruptly terminating a program to reinvent it from scratch six months later is very efficient.
(A warning about Odd Lots: the hosts never question or push back on people talking their book. This especially bad with politicians and political appointees, who are often very creative during their interviews.)
The scrapers will not attempt to discover and use an efficient representation. They will attempt to hit every URL they can discover on a site, and they'll do it at a rate of hundreds of hits per second, from enough IPs that each only requests at a rate of 1/minute. It's rude to talk down to people for not implementing a technique that you can't get scrapers to adopt, and for matching their investment in performance to their needs instead of accurately predicting years beforehand that traffic would dramatically change.
Asking as a newbie in this area, could you share any pointers to language design for performance?
I'm aware of the early difference between compiled and interpreted languages. Luau has to be interpreted to meet its security goals, and I'm asking with similar goals in mind, so I guess I'm starting from that significant limitation.
Lua gets sone perf with simple types that can represent lots of types without pointers easily. Truthiness is also fast since only nil/false singletons are falsy. Whereas Python has ´__bool__´. But look at metatable stuff for how much lua has to check
All of these introduce guards in with JIT or inline cache, preferable to have no guard at all
This isn't unique to dynamic languages, see C++ map having a layer of indirection forced to support pointer lifetimes of access living past inserts. Whereas Rust doesn't allow borrowing past that, & Go doesn't allow taking address of map value
Other examples: C optimizations having to worry about pointer aliasing. Or Go interfaces having to box everything. It used to have small value types be able to avoid boxing for interface value, but dropped when switching to precise GC
Django's was July 2005: https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2005/jul/15/chipy/
reply