Sorry in advance for bringing AI into this but... this is context engineering in a nutshell. DRY and SoC really mess with an agent's ability to efficiently gather context. If you limit all layers of a feature into a small area (e.g. folder) it's much easier to work with. Vertical Slice Architecture is a good example of this too.
It's a good point though this is also what makes it easier for humans. I think most good abstractions hide unimportant details in order to make it easier to reason about and reduce the context but both the appropriate amount of context and what is an unimportant detail are not consistent between individual devs and don't have good metrics to measure their qualities.
For matching decompilations like this, pretty terrible. It can give a rough layout of a function with some branching, but it fails to create reasonable human like structs (which have to be inferred from the assembly), and matching what it has created can be the majority of the work. We did this without any AI assistance, but I relied on the Ghidra decompilation feature for outlining a functions layout (though even that had it's limitations).
The training data is just too minimal for this sort of thing. The decomp.me database would probably be really good to train a model on.
The point is that it's made a group of people that are already generally rich, richer. If it made a group of Indian women it would be marginally better as there aren't as many rich Indian women as there are rich white men.
Either way, I think the bigger point is that it's made a small number of people very wealthy.
Aside from the fact that "white men" isn't a meaningful "group of people", the majority of people who became rich from crypto were not rich to begin with. In the early days, it was mostly nerds, programmers and young people who became interested in the technology. VCs and wealthy investors were relatively late to the party.
A lot of "sound money", goldbug types got in early like Trace Mayer and Max Kaiser and SV guys who had a lot of time on their hands because they were rich from some earlier Internet thing, like Richard Heart and the Winklevosses.
I'd be willing to bet crypto has made more Indian women rich than all the silicon valley startups combined. So its probably a move in the right direction?
I'm a programmer, occasionally I use it to find people to help me with side projects. It seems to work pretty well, once you have the interview process down you can find some good people on there.
Got any tips on how to get going on a site like Upwork? I'm not sure I tried that one before, but I had a horrible experience on Freelancer.com and I've sorta shied away from those since then. I have enough on my plate with grad school and a full-time job at the moment, but if I ever find myself in dire straits I'd like to have options.
Toptal as a freelancer for full or part-time I find better, even if it comes with all sorts of other issues like their opaque refund policy. There's other freelancer sites around too that are similar, usually posting on remote job boards like remoteok, weworkremotely, jobspresso ect. Surprisingly making a post on your local Craigslist you want contract, P/T work pans out too if some local company decides to contract you but I wouldn't work for individuals there since you'll likely not get paid. There's also here, the monthly freelancer for hire post.
Charge bellow market rate in order to build reputation than brace for the day some dick will complain about some bullshit and they pull the rug under your feet.
Technically, I believe that has always been the definition of a hacker, even back in the 80’s. Since then it’s been movies and popular culture that have got it wrong. I believe that what most people think of a hacker, i.e someone who digitally breaks into a system, is actually a ‘cracker’.
I think it's time to stop fighting this fight--nobody I know, even among the security/tech literate, uses the word cracker. We may just have to live with the fact that "hacker" means two easily conflatable things, at least until another term actually catches on for one or the other.
I think hacker is the right term to use for someone who can pick up existing systems and modify their behaviour to suit other purposes, be it for fun or profit. Think back to ESR and RMS type of hacker.
Sure. Hyperledger Fabric 1.0 has the option of "Channels" to limit viewership rights. In particular it restricts rights to a subset of the community. For example, you may have a 1000 parties in the community, but a particular channel may have only three (say A, B and C).
Now, if one takes a Supply Chain example (a domain I'm quite familiar with), most transactions cannot be restricted to just parties A, B and C. Some will involve A, B and D and some will involve B, C and F etc. So, it is difficult to come up with a suitable Channel membership model.
Even if the transaction is between A, B and C often the view rights are not symmetric. For example in a drop ship case where A is the Buyer, B is the seller and C is the fulfiller, the price attribute may need to be visible between A and B but not C. This is not possible with the Channel approach.
So this particular type of hard partitioning only works for the simplest Supply Chain examples.
Another type of hard partition is to partition by Transaction. But this involves issues such as synchronization between transactions. This becomes an off-chain concern with major consistency issues.
That's complete rubbish. If they were really interested in helping customers get to the products quickly the products would be displayed underneath each websites search result.
What they really want is for the retailers to pay for the privilege of having their products at the top of the page.
