I disagree with you on "Measure What Matters" book. I was really looking forward to reading John Doerr's book, and I stuck along with it longer than usual, but had to ultimately abandon it before hitting the 100-page mark. It seems that just reading GV's blog post[1] on OKR's will teach you as much as reading the whole book.
In addition, the book is one content chapter, followed by a few success stories chapters written by founders themselves. These chapters are written in a very uninspired tone (almost as if they wanted to write something and get it done for JD, not because they wanted to share their story) and barely inspire you or bring in any new insights over the meatier content chapters.
This is not a criticism of the OKR system — arguably it's one of the best goal setting systems out there. But does it need a whole book to understand? I think not. It just seems to be a vastly missed opportunity to me. John Doerr is pretty much a legend in the valley, and maybe my expectations were sky high hoping for a book on the same level as High Output Management or Hard Things About Hard Things.
I don’t really mind these buildings - juxtaposition is always a legitimate form of artistic expression, I don’t think that goes away in architecture. Would it perhaps be better to commit one way or the other? Maybe, but it makes sense for a country with as much history as England (while wanting to be progressive as well) to make trade offs, and seeing how styles change is kind of interesting.
It relies on the parties to take an action (that they are both incentivized to take in order to see if they won). This is similar to atomic swaps - they setup a time boxed window when people must take an action. If one of the parties fails to act in time, they will, in fact, lose their coins.
There have been some other answers, but I’ll add first, people may just want to bet BCH - if it’s possible to do, even with a limited instruction set, why not figure it out? Second, turing completeness is not a panacea, and as we’ve seen now several times, the expressiveness of Eth’s VM actually opens it up to more bugs.
Am I missing something? End 2 end implies client to client, no server access to keys...doing server to client with full key access isn’t even a particularly hard problem, the tough part of most e2e systems is the ECDHE exchange, that’s where I thought this was going.
I actually really like Visual Studio Code, I could imagine a great product coming out of the marriage of Code and Atom. I could also imagine infighting killing Atom, but I’ll try to be optimistic.
But isn’t that sort of the issue? If you make assumptions about overall code quality, you’ll probably let smaller stylistic things slide because “this is a good coder.” I think about this in terms of some of the more contentious project (think bitcoin, this would be great for removing some of the personality clashes there).
