Mind you, despite being a possible conflict of interest this also provides credentials for likely relevant expertise, with skill and interest in correcting errors.
Or, perhaps the complete opposite, where it's someone who actually knows how to benchmark JS engines because they work for deno. But we won't know unless they explain which it is.
Agreed, simply having a conflict of interest isn't a reason to disregard the complaints. But the problem is that failing to disclose it up front creates the appearance of dishonesty, which undercuts the message. But it's important for us as readers because it makes us more aware that we should be looking for some of the techniques that can be more confounding or misleading.
I want to be clear, I am not saying that the post is wrong, just that we would know to be more careful in reviewing claims.
Are you concerned about AWS starting a competitor to keydb cloud/have you considered modifying your license to prevent that from happening? I'd imagine that'd be important in ensuring the long term sustainability of keydb development
They have Elasticache which is always a concern. In terms of open source projects my read is they really don’t want to run their own and are much more comfortable operating open source as a service. They “forked” Elastic Search 2 years ago and basically did nothing with it until it was re-licensed a few months ago. Now that they are investing more into it I’m interested to see how they handle it long term.
If you switch to the impact view, you can see it's pretty much one guy doing all the work right now. The impact view also shows 1 frequent, 1 occasional and 13 seldom contributors, so I'm guessing the number of people working on OpenSearch is quite small.
Note, it is also quite possible that a lot of the work is being done behind the scene, so looking at the OpenSearch repo may not tell you the whole story. And if you search for OpenSearch in amazon's job board, you find they are hiring so I guess we'll have to wait.
Note: Do not install GitSense as the docker image has an out of date license that I'll need to update when I get the time.
This seems somewhat orthogonal to the question asked. They have Kinesis which competes with Kafka, SQS with competes with a variety of message queues, redshift, dynamo db, etc and it’s my understanding that Athena was originally a fork of Presto. So, they could definitely move more heavily into the caching space if they see there’s demand.
Elasticache is already that competitor. They are scary to be sure but they have some weaknesses. The main one is branding: Elasticache is a white label Redis not it’s own thing, to the point where their own docs use the two interchangeably.
You don't need to KYC as it's just a mobile wallet — same with all the other crypto wallets out there. I'd be surprised if Signal integrated features in the future that require KYC.
You already need KYC in form of a phone number that can receive SMS. In many countries, that is not possible without government ID and being a resident.
In my country it’s actually easier to legally open a verified trading account on a local cryptocurrency exchange than it is to get a voice/SMS SIM if you’re not a registered local resident.
MobileCoin is already liquid on multiple exchanges so the coins would just be purchased at whatever the market price is. It also doesn't make sense for late adopters to get the same price because there's a lot more risk associated with being an early adopter than a late adopter. This works both ways — if something bad happens to MobileCoin that tanks the price late adopters would be able to buy at a cheaper price because the new information gets priced in.
>“It also doesn't make sense for late adopters to get the same price because there's a lot more risk associated with being an early adopter than a late adopter.”
Often repeated but false. Early adopters mine or buy large proportions at negligible prices while late adopters mine or buy negligible proportions at large prices.
> It also doesn't make sense for late adopters to get the same price because there's a lot more risk associated with being an early adopter than a late adopter.
Other way of saying it, is that early participants in a pyramid scheme don’t have guarantees that they’ll find enough people for the scheme to be successful.
ICANN corruption is wel-known at this point after the .org fiasco. A lot of DNS industry folks are now giving decentralized DNS alternatives more attention. I wonder if we’re reaching a tipping point — it’s not unimaginable to me that in 10 years ICANN’s influence over DNS is significantly reduced as decentralized alternatives take over
There could also be trademark disputes, which is a little bit different. I don't imagine that Apple would register apple.badass, but would likely get upset if someone else did.
I guess in that case the (claimed) trademark owner would have to sue the (claimed) trademark infringer directly, rather than using the domain registrar as a sort of deep-pocketed extrajudicial enforcement mechanism. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. That's what courts are for.
The same is true of straightforward ownership disputes, too.
We don't expect (e.g.) gas stations to be responsible for monitoring for stolen cars and refusing to sell them gas.
Cryptocurrency is unforgiving in the face of human errors and issues (like disputes over ownership). It was designed without this by choice, so it should be no surprise that a domain system based on it would have the same unfortunate properties.
This is an awesome development for Handshake and the decentralized web. This is how DNS should have functioned from day one, but of course the technology wasn't available when it was created.
Matt you were incredibly helpful back when we went through the YC Fellowship — excited to see you starting this fellowship for Scientists, I'm sure it'll be a great program!
