user142

I was wondering about the case where a reference points to a different path depending on control flow. I guess you can just design your language to make this impossible but this is still possible to do with pointers in C/C++.

I noticed that there is no control flow in the examples.

Judging by the enthusiasm for hosted AI models and tools like Claude Code on Hacker News, I don't think people care much about surveillance anymore.

> scalpers and their bots would claim a large share of them

Is there any actual data on this? I know people don't like scalpers but I wonder what the actual percentage is.

Tests can only prove the presence of bugs, but not their absence. If the AI can access the tests, it can easily make them pass by just adding additional if statements. It doesn't mean the code is actually correct.

Surely programs can know where the pointer is as long as it is over a window that belongs to the program. Otherwise hover wouldn't work.

I heard the desktop environmentalists are working on such a project.

The first question should have been "Was this ticket AI-generated?".

> the ability to start a program with restricted access to files, network or OS calls (on Windows and on Linux)

Bubblewrap allows you to do that on Linux.

I just realized that you can run sudo apt install nyancat on Ubuntu. It even includes a man page.

Stablecoins are just tokenized versions of exisiting currencies. Instead of settling through the current financial system which takes days for a global transaction you settle on a blockchain within seconds or minutes. These stablecoins will probably be issued on existing global blockchains like Ethereum so they might all be interoperable within a single system just like SWIFT currently supports multiple currencies.

Stablecoins are quite different from banks. Under the system of fractional-reserve banking, banks by definition only have reserves for a fraction of their user's balances. Stablecoins are meant to be fully backed and the issuers claim to be fully backed. In theory it is possible that the issuers are lying but in practice this seems unlikely. Running a stablecoin business seems to be a relatively inexpensive operation compared to the amount of money you can make by investing your reserves into short term treasuries in the current interest rate environment. Even if Tether wasn't fully backed in 2018 they should have made billions in profits since off interest rates and recovered their losses.

I still don't understand your argument how the GENIUS Act would turn off the 'faucet'. Legalizing and legitimizing stablecoins would presumably lead to more stablecoin issuance instead of a bank run.