I've contributed to the H2 source code a few times, and in the process I got to learn much about how a database engine is implemented.
H2 home: http://www.h2database.com/
H2 Github repo: https://github.com/h2database/h2database
I attended a few years back and learnt an awful lot, this is the course page:
Haven't found the accompanying slides yet, but they must be somewhere on their website.
You might want to read some overviews on:
* postgres atomicity: https://brandur.org/postgres-atomicity * postgres disk format: http://rachbelaid.com/introduction-to-postgres-physical-storage/
This is the problem Portier (https://portier.github.io/) and OIDC aim to solve, ie to be able to auth on any website with an auth instance you run.
I love this idea because it's much easier to secure one thing whose sole purpose is authentication than to secure every thing you want to authenticate on.
That's not going to stop people from using those exact values. How many breaches have we seen due to the lack of sane defaults? Tutorial code (especially when written by the people putting out the software) is a default, and it's likely to result in plenty of people running this exact code in production.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask ahead.
I've also seen discussion on an official OAuth2 server plugin, what with the rapid increase of https sites, thanks to the likes of LetsEncrypt.
There's a well supported OAuth2.0 server plugin here: https://en-gb.wordpress.org/plugins/oauth2-provider/
But you'd be wise to only run it via https.
I've been playing around with it recently and it seems to be a very capable OIDC/Oauth2 provider indeed.
See it here: https://github.com/RichardKnop/go-oauth2-server
Available as docker container. You can simply deploy it via docker-compose up.
Yours seem to be better maintained though :)
"how do you handle privacy?" "yes"
Is there something in the works that would make it possible for 'donors' to cover the annual enrollment costs for others? Or would that defeat the purpose?
And this is off-topic but that's brilliant photography - kudos to the photographer(s)!
The language used to describe this program seems to land it in the US' medical system debate. EG enrolling in health coverage. A lot of the comments here are focusing on that debate.
I imagine the situation is different enough (industry, patients, funding, etc.) to make the comparison something of an analogy.
In any case, I'd like to hear a bit more about watsi's role and goals. Is this a medical insurance/bureaucracy infrastructure governments can adopt? An alternative way to raise/use donor aid, funding insurance instead of clinics? Are "crowdfunding" and "coverage" separate initiatives?
It looks like they are just appifying the missionariy/charity elements already going on in african nations, not providing universal healthcare. To have real universal health care would involve a lot of infrastructure building and education which would be way beyond what a small start up could do.
Silicon Valley VC-based universal coverage sponsored with crowdfunding: "wooooho that's super great! I love technology"
I would laugh if It wasn't for the milions not being able to afford basic healthcare.
Rather than develop a long-term set of healthcare provider alternatives, they're depending on selling a story and getting funding from people sensitive to heart-warming stories on the internet to "change the world". If any link in their public relations chain is broken, there goes the project.
I really like the idea. But copying a Sally Struthers late-80s TV commercial probably isn't going to solve healthcare.
In the end, I learned about mains filtering, switch mode power supplies, safety clearances, fail-safety, microcontrollers and programming touch screens all at the same time. Despite there being cheaper, off-the-shelf solutions available, I preferred this approach.
I think it could be done with a Raspberry Pi, and hopefully with minimal soldering inside the server itself.
To take an example, http://vwlowen.co.uk/arduino/spectrum-analyser/spectrum-anal... about taking a simple 2.4 GHz module and building a spectrum analyzer, is a nice post. You can tell he enjoyed doing it.
Why don't they mention Let's Encrypt? It is free and easy to setup.
edit : I also use letsencrypt certificates on my Linodes.
Not only do they control your DNS they also control all traffic going to your site, also the connection between you and them is not encrypted.
I figured this would be a tutorial for letsencrypt. Cloudflare certainly is an option but it's not one I would recommend for -most- people unless I know why they're opting for SSL. If it's static content then sure- but I don't support cloudflare for dynamic content. I'm responsible for things like passwords and I can't keep that responsibility if I actually choose to MITM my own site with an external company.
Trust doesn't enter into it. I don't trust myself with your password so why would I trust anyone else?
It took ten minutes. I boggled at how easy it was.
It's a great read, and there were quite a few snippets I didn't know - for example, I didn't know that it was Arthur Lewbel who tried to juggle upside down.
Thank you for this.
To paraphrase the meme: "Stop trying to get Web Components/Polymer to happen. They aren't gonna happen".
At least not in this version of them. It's like XHTML that went about for years before it was taken out of its misery.
We needed something like Web Components for a long time -- but the current implementation is exactly how it should not have been done.
React/JSX got the good parts of it, and added even more useful things. If we could add the missing parts on top of that (like encapsulation from the external DOM), it would be perfect, and the rest of their horrible API/design can vanish.
Most people don't actually derive much benefit from writing custom UI widget primitives.
Certainly, that's a useful thing for a UI toolkit builder to be able to do, but tangibly, for most people, it's not actually useful.
I don't have time to invest hours implementing `ImageDropDownSpinner` as a custom element. <select> is good enough for me, and heck, maybe I'll use some 3rd party widget if I need something special.
That's not why react, vue, angular, etc. are winning the mind share of 'how to build web apps'; building UI widget is far less interesting than the ability to decompose your UI into a custom hierarchy of re-usable self contained units of functionality, that only at the lowest level actually involve UI components, is extremely powerful.
They might look like custom widgets, but <PageFoo> isn't a UI widget, it's your entire application; that's the difference.
It's easy to say this was a revolutionary idea, before its time, and it would have flown today instead of vanished into obscurity... but I think it missed the mark; it didn't solve problems people were actually having.
...but to be fair, it's easy to look at 'Web Component' efforts (like Polymer...) and go... yeah, this seems very familiar...
Actually thats precisely why it never caught on. Source: I was front end developer at one of the big dotcoms ca 2000.
Also, its remarkable how many people skimmed this article, and didn't understand that the first part was from 1999. That really says a lot about people's expectations when it comes to Microsoft and web technology.
People have tried to materialize this idea in multiple ways over time - HTC, microformats, web components etc. It should not be surprising that the solutions are similar. This isn't to say the first implementation was the best, and the others have just forgotten history. I am sure there are some pretty senior web developers around who remember their history, and were even part of it. If anything we should be optimistic that the new implementations have learned from the mistakes of the past.
Polymer 3 will switch to ES6-loader and npm, probably one year away?
I spent quite some hours with Polymer, but finally give up for now, one reason is that I want Polymer 3 today, but it is not there yet, also big companies tends to make its stack for big players(look at Angular2).
I will use Vue.js for new projects at the moment, I read somewhere saying, Vue.js could be the next modern jQuery, and I kind of agree.
I think the reality is, Microsoft introduced these technologies at the tail-end of initial "dot com boom". Shortly afterward, most of the companies who might have built ambitious web apps using them went bust. Microsoft stopped investing in IE, and for quite a while afterwards, web development regressed to people building document and brochure-style sites. People were too busy trying to figure out complex CSS, and what `hasLayout` meant in IE to build component-based apps.
Mozilla teamed up with Opera and Apple, and later Google, to create what became HTML5, and that included reverse engineering and standardising a number of proprietary IE APIs. However, they chose to ignore element behaviours. Presumably because they had their own component technology, XBL, and wanted to make that the basis of web apps. And, since element behaviours never made it into Firefox, developers never started using them.
My guess is, had Firefox adopted them, they'd now be a standard part of the web platform, and we wouldn't have web components as they currently stand. There are a lot of similar "what ifs" in the history of the web. For example, what if Microsoft had adopted XBL? What if flexbox and grid had been implemented in early 2000s when they were originally designed, instead of fifteen years later? What if ES4 had been accepted and implemented? What if Cassowary had been built into CSS when it was proposed, instead of being ignored (and later used by Apple as the basis for auto layout)?
because technology per se is just one of the variables that matter. For example, you are missing things like "timing", "marketing strategy" and a whole lot of other things. =)
So as a result 96% hated the IE and the other 4% were using other browsers. No wonder nobody wanted to use the newest Microsoft only features.
why didn't we stick to xml and use a language to transform it into ui.
All without the marketshare of the time, thankfully.
Device tree is mandatory and vendors are encouraged to upstream the code. It sounds like Google has an eventual goal of building a single kernel that can boot on most devices which is a great thing for everyone.
Most of the paintings and mosaics and other findings have been removed from the houses and are in a museum in Naples, but still, it's extraordinary.
There had been a big earthquake in 62 AD that had shaken the whole region, and Pompei was still under active reconstruction in 79 AD when the eruption buried it.
(It is said that during the 62 earthquake, Nero was singing in Naples in front of 5000 people he had forced to come listen to him, and that when the earth trembled he explained it was because it was touched by his singing. Spectators were not allowed to leave the theater until he finished. The theater is no more, but the houses later built on top of it clearly follow its path https://goo.gl/maps/AsMRjEm9sj82).
In Pompei there were small houses, big houses (some over 3000 sq. m. with an entrance in the town, and a terrasse with a view of the sea); there was, at Herculanum, a nearby town, a huge villa (Villa of the Papyri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_of_the_Papyri) overlooking the bay of Naples.
None of that mattered. The eruption destroyed everything.
What a failed state, what a shame on us!
I was locked out of internet banking for my business account with Lloyds for over 3 months due to a technical fault in the way it was setup. Was paid compensation in the end, but already had moved to another bank. They could not have cared less.
Some people will say no smoke without fire, but if you read on moneysavingexpert about people being locked out of their personal accounts for the same reason. Any transfer that is slightly different from your day to day will be flagged and risk having your account locked for weeks / months on end.
It happens more than we realise. A bit like winning the lottery, it could be you :(
The further we go down the road of electronic payments, and a cashless society it could get really messy.
The only way to solve in the short term is to spread the risk across many banks, and never keep your money in one place. Keep hold of some cash!
After having similarly-frustrating things happen with my HSBC personal accounts over the years, I fully support this suggestion. They are awful. They take extreme steps (suspending accounts, rejecting payments, etc.) without contacting the customer; when you reach out to them, it's hours of being passed around before you reach the right person. If you reach a person at all.
This really struck a nerve with me, as I've had similarly infuriating experiences with Natwest (though never to the point of my account being suspended).
Passed from one team to another -- and even witnessing colleagues from different teams argue with each other, not realising that I wasn't properly on mute... I wish I had it recorded.
Opening and administrating a simple small business bank account has been the single most unnecessarily difficult and frustrating thing about starting my own business.
It's why I'm so passionate about someone FINALLY disrupting the circle jerk of the mainstream banking industry and the organisational, bureaucratic and regulatory clusterfuck that it has become.
In the meantime set up another account with another bank and make sure all invoices that are pending but not yet paid are paid into that account and not into the HSBC account.
Then shift over all the monthly payments to the new account as funds appear.
not only banks, you also have paypal, prepaid cards, etc.
and not only "short term"
eg. always avoid the "single point of failure"
the real infuriating part here is that those problems occur on a business account (not a personal account), if you pay extra for business you should get extra/faster service/resolution.
Another reason why I want to avoid a cashless society, at least in the way we're heading right now. Scary how quickly banks will cave in to pressure from the feds before any legal process even begins (if ever).
I put safeguarding in quotes because a couple years ago I was responsible for the technical aspects of the acquisition of a small fin. book from HSBC. They did a lot of absolute dictation of governance hurdles which they "enforced" - again the quotes, because they came to our offices and nodded wisely when I rattled through our list of safeguards. But very clearly didn't understand a thing about the controls we said we were using. They also didn't ask for any evidence of the controls. That really surprised me, after all the noise they'd made leading up to that meeting.
I don't rate them technically at all, so have to wonder what their business capability is like...
It was 2000 to the Student Loans Company.My account was a graduate account.
All of the clever machine learning anti-fraud algorithms in the world couldn't figure that one out.
Since HSBC kicked us out we have multiple banks and if things go wrong we just move to another one.
Not true. They have a lot of dark patterns to make you think that but you don't actually need a payment account associated with your Apple ID. It's possible they've changed this since the last time I tried doing setting one up but you may need to go through the desktop interface rather than doing it directly on a iOS device.
There can also be legal restrictions on what they can tell you. For example if they think you're committing money laundering it can be a criminal offence ("tipping off") for them to tell you that why they're investigating you.
It might also not even be directly about your business, if for example one of your counter-parties (customer/supplier) is subject to criminal investigation it could result in you getting flagged up as a related party.
It sucks when it happens but unfortunately it's a reality at every bank.
what you are seeing is what happens when due process is bypassed. if every bank follows the rules in a similar way and there is a good chance they do because they are acting in a way that is mandated by law then you can be effectively locked out of the banking system. you are being punished even though you have not been convicted of any crime by a court of law.
i don't know what the solution is because the current implementation is quite efficient. but it does mean more innocent people are going to get burned.
"PayPal, thank you. Your support was fantastic. I only wish HSBC were more like you."
I've always found this to be an issue that makes using a MAC a non-starter for me. I observed when I first got one (cast off) and it really puts me off.
First of all:
Why are you depending on only one bank account to run your business? It's very easy to set up two or more business bank accounts and use them both. Just like you have back-ups for your data (right?), it makes a lot of sense to also have financial back-ups for your business.
Same with the debit/credit card - is that all you've got for business payments? Why don't you have more than one card? Why don't you move things over to a personal card while you open a second business card?
It's too late for that now as the author didn't set that all up ahead of time, but instead of complaining on the internet, why don't they start moving things ASAP. I've found Santander incredibly easy to get up and running with (same day almost), compared to Barclays...etc.
Look, you're running a business, and your job running a business is to keep it running. If you haven't thought ahead to such possible events, you're doing your business a disservice.
So my advice - call Santander, start switching things over, stop broadcasting things online, and focus on keeping your business running. You can always do a recap later once things have died down.
And I agree, HSBC are a complete PITA. It's far too much trouble even getting a personal account with them, so a business account would be far more effort than I would be looking for.
Even Barclays wanted an in-person meeting (even though I've banked with them for decades) to open a business bank account. And the only date they had available was a month in the future. Yup, I cancelled that appointment.
So, build redundancy into your business. At the very least a second bank account. It's easy, but as you can see, so very important. Just IMHO.
Everything seems so hard. To follow and debug requests for example. How do you do that in a good way? Running a local microservice application is another.
Maybe microservices is good for very large corporations, but even then I am not really convinced since it seems easier just to learn one bigger codebase that is structured well rather than digging in to many different ones that may be writter in different languages etc.
The hype is so big and the benefits are very unclear. At least to me it seems like there are only negative aspects of doing microservices.
Before this comment pool spirals into that, I'll just leave this: It all depends on your project.
Did you have a bad time with microservices? Maybe the implementation was wrong. Maybe the project doesn't fit the model. Heck, maybe the project would STILL be screwed under a monolithic approach. There are so many variables to what classifies a success/failure in the microservice world (like most other things in software development, actually).
What's important is to not have a polarising opinion: "microservices suck", "microservices should be used for everything". Analyse your requirements. Imagine your professional project a few years down the line. Educate yourself on the subject (there are books on the subject!). Make. Sure. It. Fits.
I've personally had successes and losses with microservices, just like I had successes and losses with other architectural styles.
Such a great quote. The longer I only do management-only work, the more anxiety creeps in silently about not being able to do these things on my own, not being competent enough, being a fake etc. The moment I decide to solve some problem for myself all is cool again - and I'm more trustworthy for the team as well. The problem is that such an approach tends to create conflict of interest - as a manager you shouldn't interfere too much and allow the team to solve the problems.Maybe the notion of manager is a problem in itself. It's a tempting perspective, but as far as I remember Google thought so as well and at some point they had to step back and reintroduce classic managers again ( https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-man... ).
From all the recent trends that software juniors take as gospel (cargo cult programming), i think both Microservices and the use of MongoDB for relational data are the most damaging to a project.
Just removing the word Java from the OpenJDK sources and documentation would be a huge endeavor. All the standard tools ("java", "javac" etc) would have to be renamed. It might also require completely breaking backward compatibility, because APIs are now copyrighted and the Java standard library packages are named java.* (and probably there are class and method names mentioning "java" too).
ETA: even ignoring copyrights on API, the trademark itself might stop you from publishing the not-Java standard library under the package java.*.
ETA #2: other commenters say it's allowed to use a trademarked word as long as it's necessary for compatibility. But it's not allowed to actually say you're compatible. Apparently. I don't claim to understand this, but law is not require to make sense, so this could be true.
OracleJDK might be the no brainer install today for servers. But given any drop in commitment the community is large enough to continue by itself. It will slow down because Oracle puts a lot of money in JVM development so that would be a pity...
Oracle likes to use its lawyers, but only if they can actually win money. If someone can imagine how Oracle could make money out of stopping OpenJDK then I would be worried but I just don't see it. I sooner see them sueing Intel for using some patented trick in ICC to make their SpecCPU results look worse than not continuing to support OpenJDK as they have done today.
Their model is support JVM's for cash. Improve it internally ahead of the curve for making Oracle Cloud better than the other clouds and just get a foot in the door in Marketing materials and good will.
Given Oracle's past behavior with respect to Java, their general competitive model and their financial resources the answer is "Worse than you you or HN can imagine".
If you already have a significant investment in using OpenJDK, you may not have a choice, but otherwise there are other good technologies and you should avoid any JVM, JDK and other Java/JVM based technologies or languages. IMHO.
What they definitely can do is start charging for Hotspot which would have a disruptive effect on the whole ecosystem. From my experience around 9 i 10 shops use Hotspot before any other JVM implementation.
They may also withdraw access to the TCK which would render alternative JVMs not suitable for organizations that heavily rely on standards and have strict policies in that respect.
Should this happen, I am absolutely positive companies like Azul, IBM or RedHat will step in and build a new (friendlier) open Java platform based on OpenJDK. Heck, maybe that would even mean resurrecting Apache Harmony.
I wouldn't be too much concerned about that in genereal. Oracle does not have absolute control over Java.
GPL v2 does not say that it is irrevocable. Oracle could throw a huge monkey wrench into OpenJDK by announcing that they are revoking the current license on all of the code in OpenJKD that they own and either no longer licensing it or licensing it on terms incompatible with the current license, and start suing people who continue using it as if it is still under GPL.
This would put us into legally uncertain territory.
Generally, non-exclusive copyright licenses that do not specify a definite duration and do not say they are revocable are revocable at will. They may be irrevocable if supported by consideration.
The key question here would be whether defendants can find an argument that there was consideration (unlikely) or a substitute for consideration (much more likely).
Another approach Oracle could take is not to try to revoke the license, but rather simply announce that they are no longer issuing new licenses. People who have OpenJDK licenses now can keep on using it, but anyone who comes to Oracle for a new license is told no.
Unfortunately, GPL v2 explicitly says that you cannot sublicense and when a licensee distributes copies their recipients do not receive their licenses from the distributor but rather from the original licensor.
If Oracle succeeded with this approach the consequences would be murky. Existing licensees would probably be able to continue distributing copies and derivative works, and their recipients would be able to use them, but those recipients might not be able to further distribute copies.
For those drafting future open source licenses who want to keep these things from happening with software under your license: (1) explicitly say in the license that it is irrevocable, and (2) explicitly say that licensees can sublicense under the same terms.
Of the major free/open source licenses, the only one I know offhand that does this right is Apache.
Oracle can't really sabotage OpenJDK specifically. What they could do is take all development back in house. Oracle is the main contributor to OpenJDK so that'd effectively make future versions of Java closed source. However they aren't the only contributor by any means and presumably doing that would lead to a fork of the project. Red Hat contributes quite significantly already (ports, an entirely new GC engine) and I guess they'd become a rallying point. Probably a lot of Java engineers would quit and go join companies supporting OpenJDK. It'd cause a lot of disruption.
However, are they going to do that? Well, probably not. They've owned Java for years. In that time they've increased funding significantly and open sourced large new components that were not open sourced when they bought Sun. They've also sorted out Sun's management issues with the result that the project started moving again.
There's a lot of Oracle hate around due to their aggressive sales tactics and the Google lawsuit. But if you restrict your view to just the technical side of Java, they've not done a bad job. They got the project back on track, open sourced a lot of new code, they've got a solid long term technical roadmap with experienced engineers doing very professional work entirely out in the open. The design process isn't just open, it's done through the community process, so other firms have their say (see the recent Jigsaw hooha for an example). You can go take part in the design process of major new changes. Oracle's proprietary bits on top of OpenJDK are really pretty thin, I'd be surprised if they make much money from that.
Ultimately the question is, can you have something like Java without being worried about the owners? I think the answer is no. If you look at the alternative companies that might have bought Sun and continued funding Java, there'd have been maybe IBM, maybe Google, maybe Red Hat but probably not. Red Hat would have been the best but are they big and rich enough to have boosted funding to the level Oracle has? Even if Google had acquired Java, well Google has a shit ton of languages and frameworks all competing for internal attention. Whilst Google has a lot of code written in Java, it's not clear to me that Java would have won out for funding and executive attention in the battle of internal politics against Go, Dart, whatever. And of course there are lots of people who are worried about Google and the direction it's taking as well.
Are you so sure your project will be successful? The odds are much higher that your project will not be successful and so the choice of technology doesn't really matter. If it is massively successful, you'll have the resources to work around any shenanigans. You could even do the unthinkable and buy a license.
And, of course, Google or IBM can't take the flag and continue working on OpenJDK on their own, because patents.
a.) Learning python when you are also a beginner to programming
b.) Learning python when you're comfortable in another language
If, like the student in the story, you are in category a.) then I think the author is definitely right. The distractions of myriad libraries isn't helpful.
However, for category b.) it depends a lot more. I think there is value in understanding the core of a language but - depending on experience, familiarity with similar languages, end goal etc - I think we're talking between a few hours and a first sketch at a project before you're hindering yourself by ignoring the rest of the ecosystem.
Also, it's worth separating the issue "this library has an overcomplicated API surface" from the issue "this library uses Python magic in ways that make its semantics different from the default expectations for a Python API". For instance, there's nothing remotely magical about urllib; it's just unwieldy to use. Most of the other listed packages, like pandas, have the opposite problem.
Python is one of the top beginner languages for people new to programming, and rightfully so.
But beginners often want to build something "cool" and tangible, and need that to stay engaged.
Printing out the first 100 prime numbers after implementing a sieve of eratosthenes or a command line calculator do not fall into this category for most.
Building a website or a GUI application is way more exciting, and you need libraries for those.
>> packages that alter its syntax and behavior
Is this kind of thing common with Python? I'm used to C#, where libraries are just libraries. Sure, you still have to learn your way around them, but they don't change the language out from under you. Even in big frameworks that completely dictate the overarching organization of your code, it's still C# you're writing.
Hardware, binary, assembly, C
That doesn't mean to get full on embedded hacking, it means to get some basic grasp of how C maps to the hardware.
Then it doesn't matter how to continue learning, everyone individually has to find out what kind of further abstraction suits best.
Too much programming is taught from the top abstraction layer just to make awful soft more quickly.
However, while absolute beginners do need a hook, there's a transition phase that isn't filled: it comes between being able to copy paste SO answers together effectively enough to build a functional product, and actually understanding how that application works.
I'm no beginner when it comes to programming, but my exposure to Python has been relatively limited up until recently, and as I'm now quite suddenly running some django installs, and trying to work backwards from learning django initially to properly grokking actual python, these are the kind of dedicated resources I can see being of value.
is to focus on creating something (in this case) using python, rather on learning python, and then find something to do with what you learned
another personal point for me, was the focus of learning on the logical modeling for a programming and treating the physical modeling as an after thought
most book and tutorial focus on creating functions, classes and module (programming in the small), but spend a lot less time teaching how to group those in file and how to compile, package, distribute and deploy the program (programming in the large)
for those reasons i have to disagree with this article, since it seems to promote learning by focusing on programming in the small
I think the author could have done with calling the standard library by name instead of just calling out specific packages. And of course missing are functools and itertools and collections which I find essential in writing concise and pythonic code. Instead they single out json and csv which are special purpose
1. Is there a justification for it?Yes, Intel and AMD have together a monopoly for fundamental parts of consumer and business computers. They do not leave the choice to avoid ME and equivalents. The products are fundamental and the functionality can be provenly malicious. That allows anti-trust measures.
1.1 But aren't OpenPOWER, RISC-V, ARM, ..., alternatives?No, because the products either don't exist, are not suitable for the needs, or have similar issues with lack of documentation and guaranteed control for users. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I expect hardware level reverse engineering to check for backdoors.
2. Can authorities force them to change their offering?Not directly, but they can do it indirectly and effectively by forbidding selling their products without change. Or by charging them huge fees for every CPU sold while not offering an alternative.
2.1 Can the authorities check the hardware? Yes, but it is time-consuming and needs experts. Since it could be done for the whole of Europe, the load can be shared. Food controls also need experts, are time-intensive and don't work perfectly. Still, it is working generally good.
3. Is this likely to happen?The authority needs to be willing to face huge and important companies and be able to withstand political pressure. German authorities are hopelessly incompetent when it comes to digitalization and computers. Maybe EU's organisations wake up. They have shown to be willing to face huge corporations and speak clear and understandable words with them.
Seriously, these securities rules keep people like me from investing in AirBnB and Uber (two that I caught very early and wanted into)... but we can all go to Vegas and lose $100k in a single weekend. But putting $10k into Uber's seed round is somehow a crime I need to be protected from? Truth of the matter is this is the essence of capitalism-- it is my right to invest in Uber's seed round and Uber's right to have me as an investor (if they consent), whether I am "accredited" or not. This is basic "Freedom of association" which underpins everything from gay marriage to the right to refuse service to barefoot people.
Also, of course, I've lost my own $10k on more than one occasions starting companies. (And I've made much more as well.) Why do I need protection from myself? Especially when the terms of that protection are written by people who don't know what SHA256 is.
No, these regulations mainly keep the middle class and the not-quite-wealthy-enough from investing in the highest upside opportunities. I know it's better to put $10k into 10 different seed rounds than $100k into one seed round. I don't need to be accredited to know that.
And I've certainly lost a lot more than that (and made even more) in the stock market using complicated options strategies involving multiple legs and expirations-- I'm the very definition of a sophisticated investor....
.... but I can't be trusted to give a startup $10k?
This is what regulation tends to do, which people don't seem to get -- it raises the bar keeping the little guy out.
Once again, the rich get richer and the poor and middle class have less opportunity.
PS-- To those responding: Yes, I have heard "but what about the grandmas? won't anyone think of the grandmas???" before. I'm acutely aware of the history of this type of regulation in the USA. Ultimately this stuff keeps grandmas poor.
You should all read G. Edward Griffens "The Creature from Jekyll Island". It's a history book about money, but it's not in the least dry.
Government always has an excuse, usually a claim to be helping or protecting people, when it violates our rights.
Keeping me out of Uber's seed round is a violation of my rights.
I believe prices are inflated because of ICOs. People are buying tokens counting on ICO hype to increase their value so they can flip their initial invested principal with 2x/3x/4x return.
Without ICOs this speculative technique will not be possible so we will see how many people are actually interested in buying these worthless tokens because they believe in their "features", rather than speculate on their price.
I wonder though if the speculation will just move from China to other countries though and the bubble will continue until there is more action by regulators around the world against this.
For example if it's used as pre-sale (i.e. currency that will be used in product for a future product) then that's likely legal in most places, if it's used as a proxy for equity then it's likely illegal in most countries (most countries prohibit unregulated share offerings to non-sophisticated consumers).
Although in some cases ICOs might get considered as gambling if the purpose is primarily considered to be for speculation rather than whatever the underlying product is.
ICO (Initial Crypto-Token Offering) refers to financing through the issuance of encrypted tokens (Crypto-Token).
I don't see why projects such as "useless etherum token" https://uetoken.com/ should be banned.
You may want to ban trading the token to prevent money laundering but that would apply to all crypto coins.
I worked for my money, I paid huge amounts of taxes on them. Why is it ok for somebody to come and tell me what I can and can't do with them, and then telling me it's in my best interest to not be allowed to invest them.
The crypto markets right now are in a free fall as a result of the panic. This is a ban on ICO's, not a ban on cryptocurrency. People don't realise how instrumental China is in the crypto world, quite crazy. I am taking this opportunity to buy up promising alt coins like TenX ($pay) which are all incredibly unvervalued right now as a result of the drop.
As we learned with Bitcoin, panic is temporary and eventually things will bounce back. We are entering a brave new world with cryptocoins as they reach the mainstream.
I think ICOs can be extremely beneficial for teams to raise money. But a lot of people buying these tokens do not understand what they're getting in return. I'd like to see it become easier to actually own equity or a % of a company's revenue by holding tokens. Hopefully these future regulations will build trust in the ecosystem by minimizing scams and providing clarity. More trust yields more people converting fiat -> crypto... which should yield a healthier less volatile ecosystem.
To a relative outsider, a lot of the current movement in the crypto-currency space seems to be about amplifying the holdings of those who already hold. The BCC fork, for instance, effectively gave current bitcoin holders an overnight boost in the 15-20% range.
ICOs appear to be a way to finance things in a kickstartetr type way, only with instantly trade-able coins in the form of a new crypto-currency, with buy-in conducted in ether. These provide a new speculation vehicle, often/usually totally divorced from the underlying activity of the company.
Both of these things neatly skip any sort of bootstrapping phase that might be inherent to a new crypto-currency, and serve insiders and the already crypto-wealthy rather than newcomers or those outside the existing bubble. The whole thing seems very tenuous, and speaks very much of an "in-crowd".
I don't really understand why it is appropriate for someone else to tell me how to spend my hard earned money? Isn't that what freedom of choice is about? Even if I'm being manipulated into a scam, it is still MY choice.
Let people spend their ICO money the way they spend their votes. Its basically the same form of manipulation anyway.
Will be very interested to see in the next couple of years how many of these projects still exist.
What they've done is very gentle soft-touch stuff. They've been calling ICO promoters and strongly suggesting they get their legal ducks in a row.
Protostarr - who hadn't consulted a lawyer at all - shut down and returned the money; BenjaCoin went "actually we're good" and has argued such to the SEC.
The SEC's approach is considerably softer-touch than most people expected - but despite the rantings of crypto paranoiacs, the government is not in fact there to harsh your mellow. Point 3 of the SECs mission statement is "facilitate capital formation" - they explicitly see their job as helping you get rich! But of course, point 2 is "maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets," and point 1 is "protect investors".
A lot of folks will lose their investment/money.
Here on Hacker News we had a staunch defender of ICO's, who was saying "ICO's of some form are unquestionably the future of raising capital for most tech companies up to a certain size".
In response to that wide claim, I asked the following question which I'll quote part of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15121111
>May I ask what the largest/most successful "traditional" tech company that used an ICO is? By "traditional" I mean that their tech has nothing to do with blockchains and they could have also just raised money on angellist, and today are just a normal tech company shipping some kind of a product, like a hoverboard.
Here was their response which I'll quote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15121451
>This is early days, very early days. Give it a few years, and people won't bat an eye at raising capital via the blockchain. It's just more efficient and easier. I mean, if you like having to travel around, having tons of meetings and discussions, hoping your lead investor doesn't pull out and fuck up the whole round, by all means keep supporting the current system. It just is going to change, massively, in the coming years. There will be some sort of place for traditional capital but blockchain capital raising will hit every industry.
If you think about it, that response to my question really says it all.
(Upon my folowup, they did name two software companies.)
Google basically bought Foxit's library and open sourced it - but looks like the open source version isn't keeping up with the upstream commercial version of Foxit because the latest Foxit reader doesn't seem to have this bug.
Also Chromium changes have been merged https://pdfium-review.googlesource.com/c/pdfium/+/12391
The pdf-reader gem throws a "stack level too deep" exception after about a second. There's also a ton of other issues on pdf-reader: https://github.com/yob/pdf-reader/issues
Good reminder that any kind of file processing needs to be heavily sandboxed.
Probably just denial of your own service, not everybody else's.