ive always thought the ethereum ecosystem would give demoscene a revival. storing the demos on chain adds a new layer of complexity where the bigger the size the more expensive to deploy.
+1 to dn42 to play with routing in a really big cool environment. it’s been years since i participated but i hope it’s doing well. the work one would have to do to mimic the env is just infeasible.
off topic: i always thought mini internets like dn42 would be a super cool place to run secret/private services. fun to imagine.
maybe it’s hard for these exec types to understand that the subordinates they thought loved them actually despise them. then they write articles like this.
i just happen to try this game recently... is it just a micromanager sim? seems like (early game at least) i am just micro managing a bunch of trucks and trains telling them where to go individually.
you should include seed phrase and private key detection. a few crypto protocols that offer public docker images have been drained from accidentally committing keys to docker hub.
I think Trivy does that already [1]. I personally use trufflehog [2] to find secrets of all kinds. Unfortunately, these sorts of tools have false positives
there is a potential downside to this kind of action.
i nuked a scam caller once with a killer deez nutz joke. the guy went bonkers when he realized. i think it was ligma or bofa or something. that day i won a battle.
since then i receive 25+ calls a day. i had to enable call blocking from unknown numbers. unfortunately i sometimes have to disable this feature when expecting calls.
you may win a battle and walk away with a cool war story but you will lose the war a million times over.
I like messing with phone scammers and telemarketers. I always try new scenarios. Once I answered and shouted on the phone "Listen here, if I get only one more call from you, I will find you, I will kill you, I will behead you and I will shit in what's left of your throat, is that understood?". My wife was absolutely mortified and afraid that they'd call the cops on us (as if scammers would put themselves just for some empty threats). Unfortunately for me, or fortunately, the calls have drastically diminished in number since that one call...
everyone acting so shocked here probably hasn’t had your home robbed, your car windows broken, or been assaulted and/or robbed by a drugged out bum.
at some point enough is enough and they gotta go.
i think it’s a juvenile attitude to look down your nose at the endless victims and tell them to just be more understanding of the hardships the homeless face.
Well I've had my car broken into, and I've been assulted twice by homeless people--once spat on, and once physically jumped/attacked. (Edit: also the more I think about it, the more I remember other scary/dangerous incidences)
Nope, none of this changes my feelings, and certainly does not grant me "depravity tokens" that I'm now allowed to cash-in. "Hello, I have five depravity-tokens from being treated badly by a homeless person, I'd like to spend it on treating them badly in return."
This doesn't get anyone off the street, it just nudges them away from this specific building. What's juvenile is people trying to displace the problem into just slightly different part of the same neighborhood and imagining that it's accomplished anything.
But it _doesn't_ reduce exposure to homelessness. It _moves_ exposure to homelessness by a very short distance. It's one group of neighbors pushing those people to sleep on another block, where other very similar housed people will encounter them. Even if you fully don't care about homeless people and only think of them as a nuisance, this is the equivalent of shoveling the snow on your patch of sidewalk and throwing it on your neighbor's patch of sidewalk and saying, "I don't hate snow I just don't want to be around it."
I walk by this library frequently (it's on 16th just east of Market) and I _have_ seen that there used to be a bunch of people there most nights, and this often isn't true anymore. But as someone who lives in the area, my "exposure to homelessness" has not in any way been reduced; I just pass tents in slightly different parts of the neighborhood.
To be fair there's gotta be a more cost-effective place to house the unhoused than the Castro, West Village or Beverly Hills. I'm sure we can find cheaper stretches of land somewhere in the US.
If the average home in San Francisco sells for $1.2 million, and the average home in Willard, New Mexico sells for $120,000 is it really so dreadful to help ten times as many homeless people?
People with non-tech jobs already can't afford to live in SF. Unless you're expecting the formerly unhoused to suddenly become a Senior Machine Learning Engineer at FAANG, they aren't going to have a great time trying to make ends meet in SF.
It's not a city where you want to rediscover yourself in, unless you inherited property from a previous generation or you're one of the lucky few whose career is benefiting from the latest tech gold rush. You will not escape the homelessness cycle unless SF taxpayers guarantee you free housing until you get hired by Netflix.
I do entirely get this, but I also think it's a little disingenuous for some to act like their consideration is any more about what's best for that homeless population, versus what's best for those residents.
I didn't say it was without benefit, whatsoever. But it's not a net positive. Now you have a bunch of people who the local populace is going to be bitter at, because they get subsidized shelter. There's no jobs to be had, so you have people living there who are now going to be taking more from local social services (and they're not contributing particularly to local taxes). There's not much of anything to do there (and not in the whiny sense, there's near zero amenities, it's a town of 250 people). They're stuck there, because any notable services and infrastructure require a car (there's no public transit infrastructure).
In my mind? All you've done is create a powder keg.
> Now you have a bunch of people who the local populace is going to be bitter at, because they get subsidized shelter
Versus the love they're getting from the populace now?
Perfect is the enemy of the good. San Francisco is three quarters of the way towards spending its median income on its homeless [1][2][3]. That is how you generate a toxic backlash against a subgroup.
Has anyone asked the homeless in San Francisco if they'd want a free apartment in Willard? When rates were lower, we could have probably paid for their mortgage for less than it costs to temporarily house them. That is the opportunity cost.
> Versus the love they're getting from the populace now?
Right. So they're getting no love in either place. So why is this better?
> San Francisco is three quarters of the way towards spending its median income on its homeless
The median income in Willard is $26,000, so how far do we think that's going to go?
But like you say, there's no love in either place, so moving these people from San Francisco to Willard (I know, hypothetical) has very little to do with what's best for them, but instead "what's best for the residents of SF". Nothing much changes except SF residents don't see them and don't pay for them now.
Let's say we go with your dystopian wishes and round them all up and ship them off to some other place - with all the problems that then causes just ignored.
Someone now loses their home after that - let's say to a fire and they didn't have it insured for that because the house insurance market is either dysfunctional or close to it in some parts of the US. You now have 1 homeless person again. Do you also ship them off again?
Do you just forever keep shipping off the unlucky and downtrodden people to some other place?
What if they lost their house, but have insurance paying soon, the insurance company is just dragging their feet for a few months. They will be fine, they will be able to pay for a new house or rebuilding. But until then they might be without housing. Ship them off anyways?
Let’s be real, the world view informing this sort of carceral idea typically only has one solution, and usually it’s a “final” sort of one.
The goal is not to get rid of the homeless in the city, it’s to “get rid of them.” And -consciously or unconsciously- at its core, the goal is to have a group of weak people who are easy to oppress.
The rhetoric hasn’t basically changed in 90 years. It’s disgusting and frankly I’m shocked to see this sort of talk on HN.
one day when you’re permanently disabled because a bum hit you with a wrench unprovoked, remember to apologize to them for putting them in that position.
How often do you think that’s actually happening. Hint: not often.
Have some freaking compassion dude. Do you have any data (anecdotal or otherwise) to support your world view?
It’s rough as hell to be homeless….
And for what it’s worth (though it’s none of your business), I am “differently abled” - not anyone’s fault I suppose, but I am. I fully grasp what it means to not be able to do things I used to do thank you. That shouldn’t change how I treat others. I’d be mad if someone did this to me, but being mad at all similar people because of it would be folly.
reply