I think I may have heard of a similar problem in a different field, computational thermodynamics. Solutions to a set of equations may be real or complex. The nonlinear solvers worked with real numbers exclusively and from time to time would not converge to any solution. Apparently if one used a solver that worked with complex numbers, the solver would reach a solution in real space more often than exclusively real solvers. Of course solving was much more expensive. Your explanation seems to fit here too
Interesting, thanks for sharing! Do you have any papers or other publicly available works to share that discuss this? I'd be very interested in reading about it.
As someone who knows very little about security, this is really interesting, thanks! A question though: how would one know if there has been a breach? These examples look relatively easy to detect, but I guess there would be more complex cases?
I also know very little, but something that struck me upon reading your question: if a breach is successful, the logs can't be relied upon for detection/analysis if they're on the same server. It's important to ship them elsewhere.
This is why some people run a honeypot in their network... and even those won't necessarily catch everything if the honeypot only mimics services that the attacker isn't probing for. You can set up tripwires on access and egress of sensitive data but that's only part of the surface area (and if the system gets attacked those tripwires could be disabled, if the attacker either knows what to look for or has a plan for a side channel for exfiltrating data).
Really the only good answer is defense in depth and keep looking for any indicators of odd behavior, and wall out unrelated systems entirely from each other, keep the DMZ and public facing bits as simple as possible.
You can use honeypot that bait hackers . I am running a non-intrusive one where you put baits in your servers or laptop, when hackers see it, they'll try to use them.
IOC or indicators of compromise, but if you know little it is always advisable to hire someone to go through it on demand or periodically as there’s no one trick to rule them all.
I believe that in Canada, and certainly in Alberta, the titles are very much controlled. The regulatory group APEGA has a Professional Engineer designation for software engineers as well
Context matters. Even in Alberta, the term “software engineer” doesn’t mean anything. Last time I looked into this, Quebec was trying the hardest to control usage and they actually took Microsoft to court for their MCSE title.
Another example: the University of Alberta has a software engineering program.
Search on Canadian job sites and you will find hundreds of software engineering jobs across Canada (including Alberta).
Other examples of non-PE engineers include stationary engineer (people who operate boilers) and locomotive engineer (people who operate trains). They may have their own regulations, but it is entirely distinct from Professional Engineers.
I had a similar realization, but it’s not really about working hard vs. not working hard, it’s about knowing what’s important to your manager. Early in my career I would never say no to any task, and would give the time estimate I thought the manager wanted, and then work over time to get it done. Half the time the finished product had bugs, got delivered too late, or ended up not matching what the client wanted, so the “hard work” didn’t translate directly into success. Now I try to figure out what the client’s actual needs are and how to meet them as quickly and with as little work as possible, and when something is requiring overtime, I immediately stop working on it and communicate that it’s a bigger issue than expected, and either push the project, get additional engineers, or find a different way to solve the issue. I think programmers really enjoy solving problems and we never like to admit that something is more difficult than we expected because we feel like we failed, but actually that’s just an expected part of the job. Obviously this only works if you have a good manager who actually cares about results. Bad managers are easy to manipulate because you just optimize for whatever BS metric they’ve decided is important, but those jobs are soul crushing.
I have no experience with crypto, but this I don't understand.
> DeFi is unlocking the value of an asset, making it liquid...
Like a mortgage or a bond issuance (bonds are secured against assets of the corporation)?
> Credit is loaning you money and providing an interest rate. Usually something insane like 15%.
Average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage in the US is about 4%[1]. Average Aaa corporate bond yield is 3.43%[2]. I guess that you are talking about interest rate on credit cards? I think that credit card debt is pretty small compared to the size of the mortgage or bond markets.
> One example is on Kaurura...
I'm not sure I follow you here, but it sounds like you get a loan at 19% APR against some collateral. Then you use the loan as capital for some other investment at a higher rate of return.
My question: how is this any different, for example, from a company issuing bonds at 4% coupon rate and using the proceeds to fund operations when the company's profit margin is, say, 50%?
Let's say it's a matter of scale; I, as a person, can't issue bonds to trade on a public market. But I can get a mortgage and invest in other stuff hopefully at a return higher than the rate on the loan.
As I said, I don't understand how this is a "new era of finance".
The KSM is staked to ensure concencus of the network. proof of stake is like proof of work, but instead you are betting that this node is behaving and the node themselves are running cryptographic hash schemes like bitcoin. So like bitcoin, you are paid for validating the concensus of the network so you are paid that APR. Taken another step further, if you create a smart contract and lock the KSM in it, and that smartcontract stakes the coin for you, it can mint LKSM that proves your ownership in the pool. Slowly but surely the price of LKSM and KSM will diverge in LKSM's favor since the KSM in the smart contract is generating returns for being staked. So you can always redeem it with a slowly appreciating exchange rate. So all that to have a liquid form of staked KSM. You can now use the LKSM to mint AUSD and you can trust you can pay that back because you have colateral lockeed in a vault. Now when i participate n pools, I earn fees for providing liquidity of two assets. Now when people are trading, they can dip into the pool, swap their assets and no one has to be on the 'Other-side' of the trade. They get minimal slippage, and i get paid a trade fee that's much lower than what you can get in traditional finance (Usually fractions of a penny).
>how is this any different, for example, from a company issuing bonds at 4% coupon rate and using the proceeds to fund operations when the company's profit margin is, say, 50%?
It's nothing like that. Because A.) It's not getting people to loan me money. Company issuing bonds at 4% has to pay that 4% to get access to their assets because it's 'Risky'. In the blockchain there is no risk because they have constant oracle access to the price of the underlying asset so i can do it for free, with no counter party. Simple a piece of code collectively floating on thousands of nodes running around the world.
I think you don't understand interest rates. One man's interest is another man's cost of capital. If someone is paying you 4% for a riskless loan, it means they are overpaying for capital.
