What’s up today? (Part 1)

[Zoki]

Follow up articles on this information… and a lesson on how to be a hitman using words.

It feels like when someone works for a paper, they sell their soul and need to bend stories to suit some agenda their publication has - instead of actually reporting the facts.

This video tears down the New York Times ‘journalists’ Catie Edmonsdosn and Nicholas Fandos and is a short lesson on how to use language to spin a story.

Really interesting …

So are they being ignorant or malicious? Chris from Peak Prosperity nails it.

“How to write propaganda 101” - LOL - I would take that course.

Media: Ignorant or worse? Hit pieces on Nation's Best Doctors taken apart.

[zettawatt]

It makes sense. The media outlets are just companies trying to make a profit. Sell to your audience and do what you have to do to make a buck. They’re really hurting now with social media and independent journalists coming into the fold too. That said, government propaganda is worse, at least here there are multiple arguing factions vs one ministry of truth. On top of that the governments have no problem feeding propaganda to these media conglomerates as well, such was the case with the COINTELPRO program. In the end it comes down to you can’t trust anyone. What a world we live in…

[Southside]

How knitters got knotted in a purity spiral

[Dimitar]

Brutal!

[Dimitar]

The Stupidity Of The Crypto Community Is Infinite | GoldSilverBitcoin

[Traktion]

Interesting article. There is much I agree with at the start of it, but his attitude is arrogant and abrasive towards the end.

Everyone gets stuff wrong. No one knows everything and always makes the right decisions. Most business successes have a large margin of luck and fortuitous timing. Mistaking this for omnipotence is a recipe for ultimate failure.

[Dimitar]

If you watch his videos, he explains why he behaves like that. He believes that in the modern world more people value arrogance than modesty, ie. as a good actor he gives the audience what they are looking for…

If you want to see the real Richard, listen to this part where he gives sex Easter Egg for men ahahahah

Richard Heart on Bitcoin, Ethereum, HEX and blockchain cryptocurrency! Live, click now! Or doom.

[Traktion]

I’m sure some people love being told how it is. It doesn’t work for me though, so I’ll pass. History will judge his approach in the long run.

[Dimitar]

Well, look, I’ve talked to him personally and I can say from personal experience that his public behavior is just an acting role. He behaves in a completely different way in a personal conversation…

[Southside]

[TylerAbeoJordan]

Just need to get my flux-capacitor tuned up!

[JPL]

This is interesting - CRDT-like functionality without using CRDTs.

Microsoft Open-Sources Fluid Framework for Distributed, Scalable, Real-Time...

Frequently Asked Questions

Although it does require a server to coordinate ordering

The Fluid Framework requires a Fluid service to sync data between clients. The role of the server is very simple: it orders operations and broadcasts them to all clients. It’s also responsible for saving operations to persistent data storage.

[dirvine]

Yes that part was interesting. I noted this

In order to keep all clients in sync, they must be connected to a Fluid service. This service’s core responsibility is sequencing all the incoming Fluid operations and then broadcasting them to all clients. Because the ops are ordered, and because each client is running the same code, the DDSes in each client eventually end up in an identical state.

Note, there isn’t a centralized Fluid service for all Fluid experiences. But for each Fluid experience, there is only one Fluid service.

This is the part we need info about. It seems to say you don’t worry about handling conflicts (or making data types conflict free) as we order data. What’s good is they are not looking at a God object that orders everything (like many existing protocols) but instead the server/service orders each individual data item. That’s better, but needs clarification.

i.e. offline mode, can you continually update and reconnect? Then as the data syncs how would order work if the policy changed (who is allowed to write at that "time " (not wall clock, logical time)etc.). This is a lot of what @bochaco worked on with Lseq in rust-crdts (implementation of a paper but additional thinking in policies). It’s subtle and very difficult.

[JPL]

@dirvine

i.e. offline mode, can you continually update and reconnect?

Doesn’t look like it:

It is important to note that these files share many of the properties of a normal file such as permissions and a location in a file structure, but because these experiences rely on the Fluid service, downloading the files and working locally is not supported.

[JPL]

Jeff Bezos became even richer thanks to Covid-19. But he still won't protect...

[Dimitar]

BITCOIN HITS NEW ALL TIME HIGH! PETER SCHIFF TREMBLING!

[JoeSmithJr]

@JPL

Although it does require a server to coordinate ordering

The only reason CRDTs are a thing is to avoid having a server though…

[JPL]

There’s a spectrum between completely relying on a server and delegating stuff to the client. I edited my original post after reading the FAQ properly - what Fluid does is a kind of halfway house. Interesting to see the direction of travel though.

[dirvine]

@JPL

There’s a spectrum between completely relying on a server and delegating stuff to the client. I

I think it’s more subtle, the difference between total order and partial order. You see many (most) software devs love total order, it’s like timestamps, everything just works and is easy to code. It’s heaven. Many of these folk work in absolutes and love absolutes, in fact their world works in absolutes.

However our world, or the world outside the compiler/ide does not work in absolutes, it’s all entropy and confusion, lots happening all the time and constantly more complex. That means there is a massive conflict and I have been in so many arguments where devs insist “we need absolutes” we just do, how can we program stuff without them?

That’s the crux, understanding the world as it is, deeply understanding that first, then use the tools we have to work with that. As I have said in many meetings, you cannot stop rain, get an umbrella. So live with it, by that I mean total order does not exist, it’s a forced thing devs do to make stuff work without realising it only works in a very isolated and false world.

Then the caveat, sometimes we need bounded stuff, so like valid voters, you cannot have them async, they must participate and in reasonable time (logical or even wall clock). This does nto mean total order all the time, but total order can work there in some form. But, then many other things don’t need that bound. That bound may be total order for a specific thing.

What MS are looking at above I think is total order with a synchronicity dependency, not on all data at once, but on all data independently. This is their half way house. So better than total order, but still total order on each data element independent of other data elements. This is interesting, but means never off-line working and bad for network partition tolerance (there is likely none), so from the CAP theory they choose consistency and availability, but at the expense of almost zero partition tolerance. This part I feel is weak in their proposal.

However I am not saying it’s not interesting as it does remove the God object. It just sounds fragile though

[Dimitar]