If the price of Bitcoin increases, you collateral value increases along the losses from the short. This is why it's "delta neutral".
The real risk is to be auto-deleveraged when the other side blows up and no one is here to buy its long. Then the perp exchange closes your short and you have a naked long.
> Importantly, HyperCore does not rely on the crutch of off-chain order books. A core design principle is full decentralization with one consistent order of transactions achieved through HyperBFT consensus.
And in fact they did just this when their vaults started bleeding money on an unfavourable position (JellyJelly). They handed out a closed source binary and the validators ran it immediately, closing out the market at an arbitrary price.
If someone at work was writing blog posts with white-supremacist code, then yes, I would probably go to HR and they would probably get in trouble. Maybe they wouldn't be fired, but they would be placed on another team. And then the people on that team would find the blog posts, and the same thing would happen, and they would probably be let go at some point.
Because people that do that type of thing usually cannot shut up about it.
I think you should read DHHs recent non-technical blog posts (highlights like "As I remember London") and make your own mind up about that. Me and a lot of other people on the internet want nothing to do with it.
So let’s work off of that - expecting the entire internet to read the personal blogs of open source contributors before deciding which packages or modules to run is…not really a solution to the problem you’re putting forward.
Noam Chomsky: 'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.'
Also, your solution doesn't solve your problem: your colleague won't stop to hold ideas that you don't like, nor his blog will disappear. If it's just a blog, he didn't harmed anybody, whereas you got him fired.
There's multiple levels of freedom of expression. You could argue, and people do, that the company has it's own right to freedom of expression, and wants to portray itself in the way it wants, and that necessarily involves deciding who they work with.
For example, if I told you that you are forced to associate yourself publicly with someone you don't like and don't want to associate with, then you might say I'm hindering your freedom of expression.
And this is missing the elephant in the room: white supremacy is fundamentally anti-free-expression. That's one of it's core tenants. So we have a little bit of tolerance paradox here.
If we allow those who oppose free expression to freely express that, then they express it by limiting free expression, then by allowing free expression we've actually suppressed free expression. So, it's tricky.
In case of a blog, it's separated from the professional life. The colleague can just behave normally and avoid political topics.
It's normal to hinder freedom of speech, up to a certain level in the context of the company: I would not like to be teached about Marxism-Leninism by the barista making my coffee.
It also allows people to separate professional and private life, just line sexuality: if you like latex parties, you can enjoy them without having to tell everyone or coming at work wearing latex. It allows collaborators of different sensibilities to work together. Your supremacist colleague may even then work with non-white people and find them nice and competent!
Last, you are projecting ideas: I'm sure that many white supremacists are pro-free speech, having experienced censorship. You clearly aren't.
> In case of a blog, it's separated from the professional life.
I mean, it might be, but a lot of bloggers don't do this.
> Your supremacist colleague may even then work with non-white people and find them nice and competent!
I feel like maybe you're not understanding what, exactly, white supremacy is.
> I'm sure that many white supremacists are pro-free speech, having experienced censorship.
Right, no, the ideology is fundamentally anti-free-speech and anti freedom in general. Believing some humans are inferior and deserve less rights just works like that.
You don't have to defend white supremacists, they're doing just fine politically and socially. Better than the people they believe inferior, I'd say.
> You clearly aren't.
Yeah yeah whatever, go explain to someone else how oppressed white supremacists are.
>Do you ask the political opinions of everyone you work with
they are the HR of IT ofc they do a ideological sniff test on anybody they even so much as talk to. Can't have anybody disagreeing in this tolerant space.
Everyone does an ideological sniff test of everyone they interact with. You don't want to be friends with wackjobs or racists or whatever, because the odds those people suck in other ways is very, very high.
I also hate the framing of "disagreeing" in these discussions. It's perfectly valid to distance yourself from people because you disagree, and this is something you yourself practice on a daily basis. That is just being human.
I worked with plenty of far-left people, some of whom justified openly during lunch a genocide against whites in South Africa. While I would have preferred not to hear this, I believe that they have the right to work in the same place as me.
Well there is no genocide against white people in South Africa - nice try, grok.
But even if there was - would you want to be friends with people you legitimately believe support genocide? If you say yes, you sound kind of pathetic. You don't have to do that, nobody is making you do that.
I don't want to be friends with people who cannot separate their personal opinions and friendships from their work opinions and colleagues.
Fortunately, I do not have to, because I am able to separate the two. The question you asked made sense only in your mind, because you cannot separate and compartmentalize two different things, and instead mix unmixable things together and create a complete unnecessary mess. This leads to a total mess in proposed solutions. Again, in your mind it makes sense, because a collegue's personal blogging FEELS like a betrayal of a best friend. Not good.
I mean, I would prefer not to work with crazy people, because they're usually also awful to work with.
I'm not saying they should be fired. What I AM saying is that of course people's opinion matter in your relationships. And that includes every relationship, even work ones.
Of course, in a working relationship, people's opinions on work issues matter greatly. It is weird and counter-productive to care about colleagues' personal political views while at work.
In my experience, the enjoyment of working with people and their professionalism does not depend on the awefulness of their political opinions.
Not being able to separate, to only work at work instead of pulling your personal life into it, is a sign of a bad worker.
I do speak from European (healthy work-life balance), but still pragmatic/efficient and free-speech point of view.
> meanwhile they will destroy your financial and private life if you so much as disagree with a made up pronounce.
No they won't. Who do you know, in your real life, that this has happened to?
Because I actually know a few different people who were fired for racist or sexist reasons. I've never met anyone who was fired because they won't use "made up pronouns"
I've seen actors and rich people claim this, but the thing is they don't just disagree with a pronoun. No, they're loud and obnoxious on Twitter and then their movie does bad and they get fired. That's different.
"I've never met anyone who was fired because they won't use "made up pronouns""
> Jordan Peterson lost his application to the Supreme Court of Canada this week for leave to appeal against the decision of the College of Psychologists of Ontario requiring him to undergo compulsory reeducation for various views expressed on social media, all of which were unrelated to the practice of psychology.
>The complaints which resulted in the college’s order were made by people who had never been his patients, and indeed, who had never met him. They were also mostly American and clearly politically motivated.
Compulsory, as in he can't refuse, otherwise they will take his license.
He raised to awareness when complaining about the compelled speech. People were saying that he misunderstood, that he is exaggerating, that there is not a totalitarian attempt to censor speech, that no such thing is going to happen, that freedom of speech is not under threat.
And what do you know, the exact thing he predicted would happen did indeed happen.
Depending on where you live, the patches of "nature" may be too small to absorb the feces, especially in modern cities where there are almost as many dogs as inhabitants.
It's a similar problem to why we don't urinate against trees - while in a countryside forest it may be ok, if 5 men do it every night after leaving the pub, the designated pissing tree will start to have problems due to soil change.
Why does Germany, after having spent 1 trillion in "green" infrastructure, and generating more than half its electricity using renewables, still has the highest power costs in the rich world and needs to import massively electricity from France, then?
Why are people putting their head in the sand in front of those basic facts while saying "this is fine"?
And regarding France, subsidies for the renewable sector are a big part of the electricity cost.
Correct, subsidies for renewables. However, globally there always were and are significant subsidies for fossil fuel:
How much in subsidies do fossil fuels receive? - Our World in Data https://share.google/PjTmGHrh2Dw8f53PJ
Seems not worth mentioning?
Talk about "head in the sand".
This data is highly questionable as they consider negative externalities as "subsidies". Or things like road accidents (which happen with electric vehicles too). Another classic borderline lie by the "green" industry.
"Hey now guys we just voted this law, now you need to use your BankID to login to your phone the first time. Because, think of the children! And well, if you have pictures we deem forbidden, you'll be reported."
Once the infrastructure for mass surveillance is available, States are tempted to use it.
Also even if it may be ok in Sweden for cultural reasons, the rest of the world unfortunately isn't (but can enjoy private washing machines in exchange).
In the US (approximately) everyone has a social security number and a driver's license. In practice, those are equivalent to universal ID, just more annoying to use in everyday life.
Services do not regularly query your SSN or DL to determine if it is actively “in service” or is blocked. In fact most types of businesses don’t touch SSNs at all (the potential liability for mishandling it is radioactive). And the few that request licenses typically are only using it as part of a one-time KYC flow, there is no ongoing link to a central provider.
No, because with classic ID documents, the government doesn't know if I went to a specific healthcare provider, if I opened a social media account, if I bought a train ticket, or even where my bank accounts are (reporting is yearly, not in real time). Accessing all of this data is possible but bears a lot of friction, which prevents mass surveillance (or at least increases the costs).
Once the eID system is set up and becomes ubiquitous, it will be trivial for companies to use eID to open any online account or reserve plane/train tickets. Therefore, giving enforcement forces very convenient access to all of my activity and allowing automated monitoring. Just look at what is happening in China.
What is happening in China? I haven't been there in many years. There have been stories in the West about a social credit score system they had, but it turns out they didn't really follow through with that one.
How come not? I typically hear of some scammy Zero-Knowledge Proof promising the world and delivering either an easy-to-pass-around identifier or something readily able to be mapped back to you as a person.
I feel like we're talking about completely different things. What's currently implemented in various EU countries is basically OAuth, where user attributes are verified by the state. Being able to map that account back to a specific person isn't a bug, but the whole reason for the system's existence.
There are also various plans for age-verification schemes that should (partially) preserve anonymity, but those aren't implemented and it's not what people mean by "digital ID".
Can is the key word here. As implemented today, users can choose whether to use digital ID. In my opinion, problems would only start if the users had no choice and the government was the one choosing for them.
Many European countries got rich without colonization (e.g the Baltic States before WW2, or Austria-Hungary).
Moreover, economic studies show that the profitability was discutable - in the case of France it was a net loss due to the massive infrastructure costs and the subsidies for non-competitive industries.
I'll bite: What part of the game, which is encoded entirely by a finite set of numbers, takes input as numbers, provides output as numbers, and is processed by a CPU that acts in a discrete digital space, cannot be represented by numbers?
The real risk is to be auto-deleveraged when the other side blows up and no one is here to buy its long. Then the perp exchange closes your short and you have a naked long.
reply