jsanford9292

Sherlock | Frontend Engineer | Fully remote | Full-time

Sherlock is a decentralized protocol built by crypto missionaries.

The goal is simple: protect end users from smart contract exploits.

We are live on Ethereum mainnet with a $30M TVL guarded launch. We have raised from top Silicon Valley and crypto investors.

We're looking for a frontend developer who is passionate about crypto and user experiences. You have full autonomy on the frontend and you choose your stack. Experience with Web3 is preferred but not a deal-breaker; just be ready to learn a lot in a short amount of time.

Email me directly here: jack [at] sherlock [dot] xyz

Sherlock | Engineering roles in DeFi/smart contract security | Work anywhere | Part-time or full-time

Come join the DeFi movement and have your finger on the pulse of everything. Sherlock is a protocol designed to help other protocols launch safely and keep their users' funds safe over time. We believe crypto is the greatest movement of our time and after 3 coffee chats I know you'll feel the same way. We could use some help on frontend, and we're especially looking for people who want to go super deep on Solidity. Being a dev and a security expert is the same job in crypto.

We're backed by some of the best in crypto/SV but we're still working off of our pre-seed so you're getting in on the ground floor. Come work with some of the smartest in crypto and do it on your terms. We're distributed all over the world (with heavy presence in the US and Netherlands).

Reach out to jack [at] sherlock [dot] xyz

What a useless article. No real conclusion and no new information.

Raising the minimum wage CAN have negative effects. This is obvious. If you raise the minimum wage to $10,000 per hour, what happens? Hamburgers cost $1,000 each and nobody buys them. Restaurants become insolvent and they close. Bad outcome.

I believe no minimum wage CAN also have negative effects but those effects are less clear to me. Maybe workers get taken advantage of by companies? But is a minimum wage the best way to fix this? Would love to hear other thoughts on what specifically a minimum wage fixes compared to having no minimum wage.

Wow. I read this news on Twitter first and immediately thought what you so eloquently wrote above (even so far as comparing the imperfect measure to democracy or capitalism). Except I didn't find a single representation of this view on Twitter. When I come to HN I actually become more optimistic for the future of the world. Thank you.

Precisely. Decision-making is more complicated than it seems and people actually intuit a lot of it (such as nonlinear consequences).

Just like his "400 mi range BMW", I fear George will find himself on the wrong side of history.

Let's start with cars: why has George gone out of his way to put down Tesla, lumping it in to his "not-a-new-product" category, and decided to purchase an objectively inferior electric vehicle (BMW)?

Maybe he likes the look of BMWs. I hope so. Or maybe he cannot stomach Tesla because it represents the exact antidote to his entire argument: an "incremental" product that requires no marketing or writing to easily outsell the competition. If the future looks like a world where there are no "new products" and great writing will be the meaningful differentiator between products, why has Tesla decided to forgo writing altogether, great or not?

He makes a few salient points on the outskirts of the article. But the crux of his argument is "good writing goes beyond almost anything outside of real transformative technological leaps," one of which is not Tesla, as noted earlier.

If you had to bet the future of societal progress on improving products vs. improving writing, which would you choose?

If the future of advertising follows the future of autos, then I'm sorry but George will be out of a job pretty soon here.

For all the hackers that get scared by these articles and run out to take a writing class: don't. Focus on creating great products. As Elon does, let the products speak for themselves.

Also George, small typo in paragraph 16: "I called by system "the three Ds.""

Unpopular opinion but to me this reinforces the massively important role of short sellers in free markets. Yes they are often on the wrong side of these "exposés" (Tesla comes to mind) and can create some harm in those cases, but being able to uncover frauds affecting tens of thousands of people is extremely valuable. These frauds may have lasted years and years longer and caused much more damage if not for firms like Muddy Waters.

First sentence states:

"When faced with a decision, people may know which choice gives them the best chance of success, but still take the other option."

THIS CAN BE RATIONAL.

"Best chance of success" ignores weightings.

Say Spruce St. is slower than Main St. by 2 mins on a normal day. And Main St. had a 90-min delay yesterday. If there is even a 3% chance that Main St. has a similar delay today, it is smarter to take Spruce St.; even though Main St. has the best "chance" of success (97% of the time you will get home faster with Main St.).

Maybe the actual study does not make this mistake, but the wording of the article certainly does.

Yes, this is the 2nd totally unprecedented economic "black swan" in the past 12 years. But I agree with you. The cause may always be different, but the problem lies in the principle. We are bailing out airlines because we cannot "afford" to let airlines fail. We bailed out banks in 08 because we could not "afford" to let big banks fail. There are actually airlines that don't need bailout money just as there were big banks that didn't need TARP money after 08. Some would call these companies "better managed". If we don't rescue the failing companies, they would then have to accept terrible terms from value investors like Munger and their equity would be worth a lot less than the equity at the "better managed" companies. This is proper incentive alignment. Having the government step in and protect the equity of failing companies will always result in misaligned incentives. By the way, employees at the failing companies fare pretty much the same whether the government or Munger steps in.

I spent two years studying US regional banks and I can tell you that what you're saying is factually correct. 08 effectively nationalized the big banks. "Too big to fail" means any bank over a certain asset size will be rescued by the government if it gets into trouble. Basically, bankers get the upside if loans go well, taxpayers get the downside if they don't. The worst kind of nationalization. But the 08 regulations were so stringent that it would be very hard for banks to fail. Like you said. However, since that time, politicians decided that the regulations of 08 were too constricting to banks and were hurting small and medium biz growth. So a bipartisan coalition in Congress lifted the regulations for all banks <$250Bn asset size. Deregulation. So now, these bankers are free to chase profits without the chains from 08 and if their banks end up failing, we will still bail them out. The worst of both worlds.