One does have to wonder if the level of vitriol around crypto would be quite so high if it was merely popular and had not made some people a lot of money.
Does one? Because that's a line straight out of the MLM playbook.
One might also "wonder" why the only people with positive things to say about cryptocurrency are those with a vested interest in its success. That's not true of any other technology.
I guess my speculation stems from a lack of substance to poke holes in?
Even going line by line beginning with the first real paragraph we find they launch into a classic straw man of rejecting the "industry claims that crypto-assets an innovative technology that is unreservedly good". Nobody with a whiff of tech acumen in crypto thinks or says this. Additionally, anyone not thoroughly anarcho-Libertarian also gets the need for guardrails to squash scams.
A scattershot of the other tangible claims in the paper feel pretty similar.
"Append-only digital ledgers are not a new innovation. They have been known and used since 1980 for rather limited functions." <- true, but the also can be said for the evolution of AI models and we see where we're finally at with those today.
"Blockchain technology cannot, and will not, have transaction reversal mechanisms because they are antithetical to its base design." <- quasi true depending on the chain, but also we can approximate reversibility with clever escrow-like transactions (I'm actually building this full disclosure)
"Financial technologies that serve the public must always have mechanisms for fraud mitigation and allow a human-in-the-loop to reverse transactions; blockchain permits neither." <- unequivocally stating blockchain tech can't mitigate fraud in ANY way is silly and reductionist. Deciding human-in-the-loop reversibility is the pinnacle of fraud mitigation is also pretty wild considered how much effort and resources developers just on HN put into removing humans from their process execution loops.
"Finally, blockchain technologies facilitate few, if any, real-economy uses." <- partially true in the present tense (similar to how everything has to be adopted before it reaches mass adoption), but glaringly narrow minded if considering potential uses. Anywhere there is asymmetric trust and power between transacting parties one can imagine the possibility of an application! Not to say its necessarily the best use case, but the lack of effort of consideration seems intentional.
There's more, but I hope this provides some context to my initial post
Your experience on mastodon is very dependent on which instance you're on.
There are 3 feeds - (1) home, your personal follows, (2) local, the people on your local instance and (3) federated, the people followed by anyone on your instance (+ stuff they boosted).
If you join a server somewhat aligned with your interests, you'll have a much better time.
it's fairly simple, at some point you have to evaluate somone technical skills to make sure they are suitble for the job, and well designed tests do that.
There is an abundance of bad tests out there, but blanket statements that you won't use a tool that is used for assessing candiates is just as rediculas as saying you won't give apply to jobs that ask for your cv to apply.
Well no, if a company is happy to pay six figures but lacks the desire to spend an hour or two pair programming or even just creating a tech test, their priorities are all wrong and I don’t want to work for them. Hiring is about people and not robots, so using automated tests like Hacker Rank that almost always have zero bearing on how a problem would be solved in a real environment is a testament to a lazy hiring process and an extremely poor reflection on the company. Don’t try to automate something that should intrinsically involve human interaction.
Comparing it to a CV is a false equivalence because it takes me O(1) effort to make and CV and O(n) to do some stupid timed algorithm test for every company that is interested in the value of my labour.
I understand why you're getting downvoted but I have to say that I agree with the gist of what you're saying. We use HackerRank mostly just to package a problem set and put a timer in place for upload, nothing more clever than that, so if someone pattern matched "HackerRank test" to "disrespectful" I would think of that as a severe red flag and move on to another candidate.
There are many "in good faith" steps that both parties must do in the interview process, wherein if either party drops the ball it really makes sense for both parties to cut their losses and move on; which I believe is what you are getting at.
> it's fairly simple, at some point you have to evaluate somone technical skills to make sure they are suitble for the job, and well designed tests do that.
There is employment contract for a trial period, because you only know how good coder is when they face real problems/code. Writing sort algorithms on white board might look cool, but in real world you will search internet for best algorithms for your case, look up generic one, so you will not make a trivial error writing it from memory, or just use equivalent of std::sort.
This a link to a live demo of a recently developed Web UI for Python scripts. It consists of three parts a) the `ArgumentParser` reader that exports the command-line definition from a Python script to JSON, b) the web front-end which turns this JSON into a web form and handles submissions, c) the runner which is a basic worker process that takes submitted form data and passes it back to the scripts to execute. Output is displayed back in the job viewer.
The use case for me was a quick way to get data-processing scripts (scientific research stuff) online with minimal fuss, but it can also handle anything else.
Manual definition of command line arguments is supported (e.g. for non-argparse scripts) and support for alternative command-line formats is planned.
- Don’t give your book a shit cover because it will put people off.