This Pay-to-Taproot output spendable by anyone is a decent example.
Most multisignature behaviors still aren't exposed, its kind of weird. But looking for to taproot making multisignature addresses indistinguishable from other addresses.
There's the general empty space that people shove all sorts of things into. From plain text metadata to encoded messages to derivatives trades.
From my experience that see it as a technical superiority thing. Where if you want to use that functionality you'd be smart enough to know how to use the cli and if you can't then you probably shouldn't be using it. And then are typically met with hostile attitudes saying that if you're that much of a noob and need a GUI then just go use a lite client or something. The white bitcoin core community is very ostracizing and unwelcoming.
Even vitalik has mentioned that this attitude was one of the things that turned him away from bitcoin (along with refusal to evolve features) and launch ethereum.
I’m glad that’s mostly gone from the crypto space, but its because the core maintainers of projects from the first half of the decade either disappear, leave publicly denouncing that attitude, or die.
In the mean time, a lot of people still tinker at their own volition, read technical books, or now learn about blockchain structures in universities, leading to a continual new set of people using blockchains differently or at their fundamental level.
Pardon my ignorance but what is the difference between "witch hunt" and "cancel culture?" and do people who are part of "cancel culture" refer to their own actions as such?
2. The ability to grant oneself absolution by implicating others
The implied result is that since there isn't really any wrongful act, the only way to avoid the hunt is to accuse others. And in this way the "investigators" can go after whomever they want.
There's also an implied (3) The investigation is done by someone with traditional authority. The connotation of a witch hunt is therefore a fake investigation for solely political purposes. That is used to implicate more political enemies.
So cancel culture: If I had to, I'd describe this as a movement (or a collection of them) that tries to pressure powerful entities to take acts they deem to be moral by through social and economic pressure. That's really it.
To people who disagree with the moral position, there can be similarities to (1), but (2) certainly isn't present, and the people pressuring for accountability/action/whatever aren't usually traditional authority figures. In fact individual movements may be entirely leaderless and decentralized (so no 3).
Since moral and political lines are correlated, there can also be an appearance of similarity to the politicalized investigation aspect, but beyond the most surface level similarities, there isn't much in common.
I really enjoyed using fish for a short while, but soon I learned that it was not POSIX compliant. This was a deal breaker for me since my colleagues would often share scripts that wouldn't just work for me. I use zsh nowadays.
I love zsh, but it isn't without its own strange quirks that make compatibility exciting at times. In a thread from a fortnight ago¹, RANDOM is handled very differently for example. Try `echo $(echo $RANDOM) $(echo $RANDOM)` in zsh and bash.
I'm unsure whether minor differences that catch you out occasionally are worse than huge differences that you always have to think about. For me zsh still wins ;)
Without the same fluency in bashism from using it for day-to-day activities, the colleague provided script is less readable and less editable for the fish-fluent, bash-inarticulate. Any fish-specific scripts are also of low-value to colleagues.
It's not that it's impossible to be a shell polyglot, but GP deemed it easier to learn !fish.
This reminds me of a chapter from Clean Code by Robert C. Martin where he suggests using names from the "solution domain space" ie. CS terminology, because names are succinct and more precise which is preferred over long names that are tied to some specific domain for which the software is being developed for, which might require expertise that is disparate. The author suggests to use terminology from the "problem domain space" when "there is no 'programmer-eese'" name for it.
My team had a discussion about this and some argued that this might alienate programmers who are novices, and might be easier to use "Enlgish" but I think that if the problem space for your software is niche enough then a new team member, or a novice will have to learn terminology either way. In my opinion, programming terminologies are more precise and transferable to other programming jobs and problems in general, so is a more sustainable and relevant way of learning. It might be tough at first, and I agree the attitude of the senior dev would make a huge difference, but as long as the senior dev takes the initial confusion of the novice as a good teaching moment, and explains it patiently and clearly I think it can be more valuable in the long term.
It's entirely possible that the anecdote I mentioned in a sibling reply is just an early Uncle Bob comment from ages ago.
The Pattern Language approach to code didn't have to turn into naming everything after patterns (and then arguing endlessly about the ones that are ambiguously differentiated). It could have just been a field guide to spotting them. I recall reading a few good papers about how 75% of that book is just idiomatic functional programming code. I am blissfully unaware of anyone in the FP space getting suckered into actually naming anything after the official names.
I attended a workshop a couple years back, run by a person who was 1 degree of separation away from the Gang Of Four and he asserted that book was a Masters or PhD thesis for the youngest author and the other people were essentially editors. This was all news to me. I suspect if I had known this I would have pushed back a lot sooner, instead of getting sucked in too. A decade of OOAD ruined by someone's college project...
While the GoF book has perhaps not aged well and led to a lot of misguided ideas, it also did something that was a good idea and could have been developed further: a common nomenclature for things we’d all seen and needed to be able to describe to peers. To my thinking, the reuse of patterns to solve specific problems is along the path to turning programming into a discipline of software engineering
I told my last mentee to “read ‘Refactoring’ twice instead”.
GoF tells you What. ‘Refactoring’ tells you Why, and gives some pointers on How. In any field, if you know the why and the how of something, and the what doesn’t work itself out? Then you’re in the wrong field.
(He’s gotten promoted twice since we parted ways. He’ll be just fine.)
A fund? To what, pay the IRS to target specific individuals? After the IRS targeting controversy [0], I would highly doubt the IRS would accept that money.
I've pushed for this before. Your idea: haven't read linked article yet. Mine was an organization that obfuscated working- to middle-class finances as much as rich. It would operate at cost with most legal stuff done as templates and accounting comouterized. It could be a public-benefit company, foundation, or co-op. They'd just charge annual fee to be in, consulting for anything complex, and everything external at cost plus minimal labor.
javascript:(function(){audio=document.createElement('audio');audio.controls=true;audio.autoplay=true;audio.src='https://per.quest/'+document.location.href; audio.style='position:fixed;right:0;top:0;height:revert;z-index:10000;';document.body.appendChild(audio);})();