Unfortunately I can't play due to the HN hug of death, but I just want to say that this is a great idea. Chess is a wonderful game on its own, but having a synchronous element to the game and information asymmetry seems like it could add a lot of depth.
I find it helpful to think about blockchains as the next step in the fintech ladder. Imagine you want to represent ownership of a company, i.e. stock. You don't need electricity to do that. You can accept orders in person, record ownership in a book, issue paper certificates, etc. However, when the mainframe was invented, it became easier to track ownership electronically. Using electronic transactions also made it possible for many more people to trade and expanded the types of products offered, e.g. options became commonplace. Now, the blockchain has arrived. It does everything a mainframe at a large financial institution can do, but it opens up the platform so that more complicated transactions can happen and democratizes the platform so that anyone with a computer can write their own smart contract.
What we're seeing now is akin to the the dotcom boom / bust in the late 90s and early 2000s. A new technology has appeared on the scene which leads to two things:
1) People get ahead of themselves. In the late 90s, people could envision all the cool things the internet would unlock and tried to start businesses to realize the potential. Many of those business ideas would be viable today, but the tech wasn't there at the time leading to a lot of empty promises being sold. Today, people can envision how the blockchain will lead to the securitization of everything, but the tech isn't quite there to make the transition yet.
2) As with any optimism boom, there will always be crooks ready to separate a fool from their money.
You could solve the resource starvation issue by running multiple instances of your app and binding to a port using the SO_REUSEPORT option. This will allow multiple instances of your app to use the same port.
This option is also quite good for deployments as you can have instances stop reading from the port while client traffic is still being served from other instances on the port. This works well for HTTP requests, but less so for something like gRPC.
In Go, you can use syscall.SetsockoptInt. Most languages have a way of setting this option. You have to create the socket yourself and pass it into your HTTP server in most cases, but it depends on the library.
Basically, there is no free will. Think about it like this: where do your thoughts come from? They appear magically in your head. So you can choose between the set of things you think about, but the set of things you think about is out of your control.
Crypto doesn't pose an existential threat to the NYT business model like social media and search do. I.e. The NYT is in the advertising business. Google, Facebook, et al are direct competitors.
> The NYT is in the advertising business. Google, Facebook, et al are direct competitors.
The NYT is in the "providing content to lure people to advertisers" business. They don't sell ads to third parties. They could be very symbiotic with Google, for example. If Google was searching their content, bringing readers in, and supplying ads. But, instead, Google scrapes their content and helps people never visit their site at all.
> The NYT is in the "providing content to lure people to advertisers" business.
What does that mean? The NYT sells ads, i.e. you can pay the NYT to have your advertisement shown in the NYT. Google sells ads, i.e. you can pay Google to have your advertisement shown in Google results. The NYT and Google sell the same thing. They are competitors.
The NYT's business model is to sell their customer's eyeballs to advertisers. While Google does that with search results, they have a big arm that sells random third party eyeballs to advertisers, and then splits the money with the site supplying the eyes. I would characterize the first of Google's businesses and the NYT business as "providing content" and the second as "advertising".
In fact, the NYT outsources their ads to Amazon's advertising business.
Google's first party platforms (Search and YouTube) account for 85% of ad revenue [0]. Search alone accounts for 72%. I'm not really sure how AdSense is relevant to the discussion. Google is clearly a huge competitor to the NYT.
I mean they do that. Companies issue, hold, and buy back stock all the time. The difference is that JPM stock is a thing that people want and has intrinsic value as it confers ownership over the company.
Mighty had no hope of succeeding. I’ve built something very similar to Mighty, and the fact is that browsers are hogs, and then adding on video transcoding on top of that makes the situation completely untenable. If someone can’t afford a computer good enough to browse the web, they sure as hell can’t afford a computer that can transcode HD video at all times, which is essentially what they’d need to pay for.
This was EXACTLY the problem Mighty was encountering.
They were targeting customers who didn't have powerful enough computers and offering a way to make their computer effectively faster while browsing the web without needing to upgrade their computer.
The problem is the solution costs $35/mo. That's $420 a year.
Anyone who can afford an extra $420 a year to improve their computer speed, probably is just going to buy a better computer with that money.
Browsers aren't single threaded, so the ST performance isn't the end-all-be-all metric to use. JavaScript is single threaded, but the browser itself uses multiple threads. E.g. there is the main thread, which handles the user input. There is the rendering thread, which actually takes up a majority of the CPU time on a lot of websites. And then there is stuff like GPU acceleration, which makes a lot of the web performant when it wouldn't be otherwise. Of course, a server does all of these things worse than a decent laptop.
It is the end all, be all metric. The reason is because once a certain threshold of MT performance is reached, which the M1 most certainly reaches, then the ST is what matters for how fast your website loads, even with multiple tabs opened.
Isn't that a pretty lame excuse? In exchange for saving a few dollars, you're going to hand over the keys to your entire account -- or possibly your entire net worth -- to an unknown, unregulated, unaccountable corporation?
It's not an excuse, just an economic reality. People prescribe value to things. The value of a typical transaction at a centralized exchange isn't worth the on-chain transaction cost. That's a problem with current blockchains, not a problem with the purchaser.
I can send thousands of dollars (with a 'priority' fee schedule) for less than a dollar in fees over the plain 'ol regular BTC network. It may be an economic reality, but it's a negligible one.
I wouldn’t say tether shows that trustless decentralization is irrelevant. Rather, the existence of tether proves the need for stable coins. What was interesting about LUNA is the attempt to create an unbacked stable coin. That would have been a true innovation had it worked.
