Seems bad for Snowflake? Iceberg is a big part of Snowflake's data lake offering, and I assumed it was a Snowflake-originated OSS project until this announcement (all Snowflake products have snow related names).
Having worked with a team using Snowpark, there are a couple things that bother me about it as a platform. For example, it only supported Python 3.8 until 3.9/10 recently entered preview mode. It feels a bit like a rushed project designed to compete with Databricks/Spark at the bullet point level, but not quite at the same quality level.
But that's fine! It has only existed for around a year in public preview, and appears to be improving quickly. My issue was with how aggressively Snowflake sales tried to push it as a production-ready ML platform. Whenever I asked questions about version control/CI, model versioning/ops, package managers, etc. the sales engineers and data scientists consistently oversold the product.
I think you are trying to pigeonhole Eskenazi's argument into the standard "progressives don't care about crime" punditry that's popular on the right. I would suggest re-reading the column with a more open mind. His argument is that feeling safe is as important, if not more important from a policymaking perspective, as empirical measures of safety ("real risk") such as violent crime rate. He is in fact arguing the exact opposite of what you are characterizing him as arguing ("rampant property crime does not make you unsafe", "festering drug addiction does not make you unsafe"), and seems to have advised politicians to ignore these issues at their own peril.
The problem is that just like violent crime rates don't fully explain feelings of safety, things that make one feel unsafe don't fully explain all violent crime. Since Bob Lee's murder did not seem to be a result of either drug-induced psychosis or a mugging gone wrong, Joe made the correct call that the murder was likely unrelated to either of those issues.
That all being said, it appears that you have issues with him based on unrelated reporting on an issue you seem to care deeply about. A good of a time as any to examine any potential biases you might have when receiving new information so you don't accidentally embarrass yourself on Twitter!
> It's easy for a childless bohemian to have no problem with needles in parks, but for those of us raising future citizens, it's not fun.
> Your entire statement to me seems driven by emotion
> Sorry, but the whole comment reeks of luxury beliefs.
C'mon man. You don't know the person you are responding to and included multiple personal attacks in your response. There's a way to make your argument without making the person you are responding to your own personal hate-object.
Reminiscent of the 606 shelving system Vitsoe produces. Given the section dedicated to the desk's "Field Rail," I assume TE is going to release a couple more projects using it as part of some modular system. A brand with similar cult status, Snow Peak, revealed their own modular office concept[0] around a year ago, so I'm guessing that Teenage Engineering is planning similar things.
To a certain extent, isn't this all a moot point? The sanctioned ETH addresses associated with the Ronin hack didn't use the immutable TC contract, they used the proxy contract[0][1] which can be updated from the Governance address (which is controlled by the Tornado Cash DAO). It appears that the transactions happened after the Treasury Dept. published the sanctions list.
To use your metaphor, a person who it would be a crime to sell anything to went to a gun vending machine to buy a gun. Given the nature of gun vending machines, it would be difficult, but not impossible for the vending machine company to prevent this scenario. However, in terms of assessing whether a legal violation occurred, it doesn't matter that the item the person bought was a gun, if the gun was then used to commit a crime, or if the item was instead a rubber band or a brown paper bag, or if the gun vending machine company designed the gun/band/bag or produced the gun/band/bag.
* DHTs are "invented" at Berkeley/MIT. Online storage is too expensive for most end users, so the target market is helping large companies index data in their filesystems.
* A bunch of content distribution protocols get built on top of the concept, the most popular being Bittorrent. Torrent protocols run into issues with the free rider problem, resulting in slow downloads. Meanwhile, storage on the web is becoming cheaper and cheaper.
* To solve the free rider problem, IPFS was created. A brilliant incentive structure was created so that asset hosting no longer relied on the benevolence torrent seeders. Meanwhile, companies like Cloudflare, Mega, Google and Amazon make online storage essentially free.
* Cloudflare starts hosting IPFS assets for free. Decentralized storage still exists, but is still slow in comparison and, in IPFS's case, is more expensive than free, so people only use IPFS addresses to download assets from large, centralized services.
* IPFS is mostly used as a distributed network of hashed addresses that can be used to look up data in a large company's filesystem.
> Did it make Reddit a more friendly place? Probably not as tensions have never been higher.
Did allowing hate speech make 8chan/Voat friendlier? There are plenty of unfriendly communities that lack overt racism/fatphobia, but I can't think of any friendly ones that do.
That research was published by a libertarian think tank in 2013. Since then, there have been numerous examples of lone wolf terrorist attacks where the perpetrators appeared to have no offline contacts with extremist groups. See: New Zealand shooting, Pittsburgh shooting, etc.
I believe this is wrong. Creator percentage isn't coded into the Ethereum-based NFT's themselves, it's done at the marketplace level. Currently, if you bought an NFT on Foundation and sold it on Opensea, there isn't a way to encode directly into the NFT a guarantee Foundation's royalty agreement would be followed.
EIP-2981 is the draft protocol-level NFT royalty implementation, but you will note that it's opt-in and NFT marketplaces do not need to respect it (although theoretically they could be blacklisted/sued). It explicitly outlines why a non opt-in implementation wouldn't work:
> It is impossible to know which NFT transfers are the result of sales, and which are merely wallets moving or consolidating their NFTs. Therefore, we cannot force every transferFrom() call to involve a royalty payment, as not every transfer is a sale that would require such payment. We believe the NFT marketplace ecosystem will voluntarily implement this royalty payment standard to provide ongoing funding for artists and other creators, and NFT buyers will assess the royalty payment as a factor when making NFT purchasing decisions. [0]
The only non opt-in royalty percentage implementation I know of is Euler Beats, but that royalty percentage only applies to printing new NFTs through their bonding curve. If you bought an Euler Beat print through a third party, you could simply use the safeTransferFrom function and avoid royalties entirely.
As someone pointed out in this thread, this arrangement is very common for high end art already, since it helps keep incentives aligned between collectors and the artists.
> Google isn’t abandoning second-price auctions for products where it controls the end-to-end buying experience. YouTube, Google Search, AdSense for Search and other Google properties will continue to use second-price auctions.
Looking at the actual press release this listicle was based off of, the countries with highest media trust are, in order: Indonesia (73%), China (70%) and India (69%)[0]. These countries are ranked #119, #177 and #142 on the Press Freedom Index[1].
I think "trust CEOs" is significantly less supported by Edelman's data than "reduce press freedom, emulate China," but I'm just a random internet commentator, not a high quality journalist like Felix Salmon.
I'd also note that the 3% drop also appears to be barely outside the survey's margin of error (survey population size: n=1,150).
That's the guy who got banned from Twitter for harassing the authors of Stochastic Parrots right? Dude seems like a piece of work[0].
> On his resume, Lissack said he’d been a visiting research professor at George Washington University. When The Verge reached out to the school to confirm, a media relations specialist said he’d checked with multiple groups but could not verify Lissack’s employment. Lissack forwarded an email from a professor at the school, who said he’d been a “guest lecturer.”
> In January, a PhD student at the University of Washington tweeted parts of the article on Twitter. Lissack then posted her diversity statement where she spoke about her struggles with mental illness. “[The student] acknowledges her mental illness here,” he wrote. “Much better to disengage Even better would be for her to get help.”
> Lissack also contacted a woman who’d been collecting screenshots of his activity on Twitter. “Karma is not a nice lady,” he wrote. “You have been warned. She is very patient and highly effective.” Lissack emailed the woman’s husband to say that his patience had ended.
> On March 1st, Jeff Dean finally spoke out about Lissack’s behavior. “I (and Google) have no connection to Michael Lissack,” he wrote on Twitter. “I have seen enough disturbing reports of this sort of behavior that I have emailed him and asked him to cease contacting people who don’t want to be contacted. This kind of behavior has no place in scientific discourse.”
I think the recent NYT article on DLive laid out a theory that I find particularly convincing.
> In messages obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Wayn told employees last year that he wanted to suspend some of the white supremacists and neo-Nazis who streamed on his site. But, he added, “if today we ban everyone controversial on DLive, the difficulties we will encounter on the growth will be 10x more than having them.”
> The strategy, Mr. Wayn said, was to “tolerate” them while amassing more legitimate video game players who would eventually “dilute” the right-wing community.[0]
Parler isn't run by "extremely principled libertarians," Parler just wants to get its foot in the door. And when taking on a dominant, well-funded incumbent, few users is perhaps better than no users.