If you are doing continuous profiling, you are probably using a low overhead stack sampling profiler rather than recording every method entry and exit.
That's a fair point. It really depends. For example, if you're recording method run times via an observability SDK at full fidelity, this could be an issue.
You can still make that bet at 10% "yes" for the next year. Previous years had similar patterns, so it's not a reaction to Trump.
To be fair, we don't need to find little green men in a UFO. It's sufficient to e.g. find fossils of extinct microorganisms on Mars, which is a slim possibility that's a goal of the Mars Sample Return mission.
These markets also have low volume at reasonable prices. If you bought $10K of "no" right now for next year, you would only get an 8% return, not 10%. You could execute better trades to get better prices, but the odds also become more sane over the year. The S&P 500 is also up 18% YTD (13% YoY for the last 5) and you can buy as much of that as you want.
I don't believe that fossils of microorganisms were counted in the resolver, but the ambiguities of Polymarket are definitely something to be wary of if the resolutions aren't well defined.
To your last point, I'd argue that the S&P 500 has way more risk. Bets for insane stuff like this where a sufficient number of morons are believers in the obviously-not-going-to-happen outcome are the ones that act like CDs.
Except that the conclusion is wrong because you need tolerance. A bridge is designed to tolerate a certain weight, then you factor in some large tolerance for special circumstances, the same is true of effort.
You put more effort into your team presentation just in case there are guests. You cannot suddenly have a better presentation instantaneously when you arrive and see the CTO. In sports, such as bouldering, you will grip a hold slightly harder than strictly required in case you suddenly slip or just to easily accommodate the dynamics necessary as you shift your weight without requiring ultra precision which is a different form of effort.
The additional effort you expend is based on your estimation of the risk. As you master whatever skill it is, then you are better able to estimate the risks and the need or lack thereof for additional effort. Novices expend more effort than masters because they cannot gauge the need, but they will also make more mistakes by correctly guessing the correct effort but not accommodating for the risk.
The appropriate (over)effort is never 0 because there is always some context dependent risk.
This is an incomplete list of protocols that aren't part of core Wayland. Compositors implement additional protocols that aren't even part of this process (e.g. wlr-screencopy-unstable). See the wlroota protocols here: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wlroots/wlroots/-/tree/master...
Right but there's the xdg-portal for screen capture which runs through Pipewire and supports sand-boxing (because its negotiated over dbus), which all the main compositors support.
Just because a protocol isn't part of Wayland, doesn't mean a standard protocol does not exists.
They run these clients themselves and the redis instance isn't publically exposed.
It would indeed be very strange to hope your random users coordinate with your client side load balancer. You wouldn't even have to send real traffic. You could just manipulate redis directly to force all the real traffic to go to a single node. DoSing redis itself is also pretty easy.
I don't think the article implied that the client was for some sort of internal server-to-server communication, or that the Redis instance was directly exposed to the internet.
So no, I don't think they run these clients themselves. If the code runs out there, it's open to inspection.
Either way, you are right to point out that it important to only a try a pattern like this if your clients are highly trusted (or/and have additional compensating controls against DDOS threats). It would be beneficial if the OP made more explicit what their client/server relationships and also flagged the risk you mentioned for general audiences not to go implementing such a solution in the wrong places.
BTW the page mentions Alternate Styles, which is an obscure feature in firefox (View -> Page Styles). If you try it out, you will probably run into [0] and not be able to reset the style. The workaround is to open the page in a different tab, which will go back to the default style.
Having driven in the US and UK, this is a significant difference between the two. In the UK, you might sometimes drive 30 under on a road that is nominally 60 mph. In the US, that road would have a specific posted speed limit that is safe to drive. US roads are also more consistently designed for constant speed or have additional advisory speed limits for curves. You can nearly always drive as fast as the number on the sign unless there is some additional hazard.
I'm not the author, but I think you could by using UNION ALL instead of temp tables. You could also make a view that just calls this function. I'm not sure why it would matter though.
reply