WnZ39p0Dgydaz1

This. I would add that role titles also exist for negotiation purposes. For example, a new employee may prefer to be called "research engineer" instead of "ML DevOps" to open up future career opportunities, even if the work done is the same.

That makes sense but I don't know if you can really draw a parallel between email and these devices:

(1) Sending email is nearly free, creating devices is not. Not sure if the economics match.

(2) False positive filtering matter because spammer need to manually reply to emails, creating more work. But with these devices this is not the case, it's all automated. There is no need to filter out smart people.

What I don't understand about these scams is: It must be quite difficult and expensive to create shrink-wrapped modified devices. But the letter itself is so full of spelling and grammar mistakes that it can't be taken seriously. How is it possible that you can create these devices but you're incapable of having someone proofread the letter!?

> sent you a new device you must switch to a new device

> this *kinda* breach

> there is a manual inside your new box you can read that

Seriously?

Derivatives typically have mechanisms that forces them to stay pegged to the underlying asset. So it's not quite the same, even if you don't own the underlying asset. For example, perpetual futures (like those on FTX) have funding rates that vary based on price difference of the future vs underlying.

Docker, the company, is such a sad story. They have such an impactful technology but completely failed to monetize it and lost multiple revenue streams to competitors. Shows how hard "open source companies" are. Others OSS companies have similar problems. It would be nice to find economic models where impact is correlated with revenue.

> Of late he feels like all the activity of himself and his peers is just playing the Science Game: varying some variable with infinite degrees of freedom and then throwing statistics at it until you get that reportable p-value and write up a narrative short story around it.

Just like ML research, we just skip the p-values.

I don't think people consider the entire site spam. It's user-created content after all. But if 99% on a site is spam and your articles are not, you may want to consider posting them somewhere else, ideally your own blog, to avoid suffering from the site's bad reputation.

The same goes for medium.com. There are good articles on Medium, but 95% of it is low-quality or spam, so I generally avoid these links or come in with the expectation that an article is likely spam.

Sad but I feel the same way. I still enjoy reading HN comments and there are occasional gems among them, but most posts on HN these days reflect the mainstream majority opinion, the same platitudes and topics over and over again. It's not people at the forefront of new technology. I guess it's the "crossing the chasm" effect.

I don't know any better place though. I find myself using specific small subreddits more and more recently even though I was never a big reddit user in the past.

Yes, you will always need humans to make human judgements but they don't need to be part of a court or central authority. With reputation and consensus incentive systems in place, these judgements can be made by trusted 3rd parties and feed back into the smart contract without the need for a single central authority.

The point isn't to get rid of humans or trusted 3rd parties. It's to get reduce the reliance on a single centralized entity that may be corrupt, inefficient, or malicious.

This is a spectrum similar to taking out loans and performing liquidations. If the person you are giving a loan too is sketchy you may refuse the loan or charge higher interest.

The same principle applies here as physical eviction is fundamentally about risk. There is an "auction" on the eviction and potential evictors can decide how risky the eviction is. More risky evictions will require a larger payout.