1. 0

    even if I’m surprised that psycopg2 don’t use native statement, the security warnign at the end looks like too much, psycopg2 is very unlikely to make escape wrong

    1. 1

      Agreed, but it is a (minor) unnecessary risk. Personally, I think it’s most annoying that psycopg2 doesn’t use the native syntax, if you’re used to that you have to remember to use %s.

      1. 1

        Actually %s is one of the three native syntax in python (?,%s,:1,:name), The more diverse the native syntax are the harder they are to remember for a python developper

        1. 1

          Don’t forget {} (the newer(?) str.format() syntax). It’s a tradeoff of course, but it emphasizes Python rather than Postgres. libpq could’ve also used %s (that’s the placeholder for strings in C printf() too) but they didn’t.

          1. 1

            unless I mistake {} is not an option in the DB-API standard api for python

            1. 1

              Ah, you can use :name and :1 in the DB-API? That’s kind of cool and goes a long way towards readability and power.

              1. 1

                you can only use it if your driver enable it. A driver chose one of several of the three options

      1. 1

        If I understood correctly they tried to design a language according to the research on usuability of existent programming language

        1. 1

          As I understand it, the design effort is ongoing, in that they are still doing studies on different features and the syntax for them.

        1. 1

          What is the magic behind ${i// /_}"

          1. 3

            It’s bash parameter substitution – very useful!

          1. 4

            The website is using some kind of cutting edge technology when applying the javascript and css making it unusuable on my low end android device with Firefox

            1. 16

              99.9999999% of pushnotification are pure shit exactly like advertisement. Why one should be better than the other ?

              1. 5

                Hmm, every single push notification I get on my phone is useful (new podcast published, new chat message from people I care about, period ticket for public transport has expired). Every web push notification is similar (someone pinged me in IRC, someone sent me a message on Telegram). If 99.999% of the push notifications you receive are shit, you have failed as an administrator of your personal devices.

                1. 17

                  you have failed as an administrator of your personal devices

                  it’s quite the industry fail that this is even a role that exists.

                  1. 2

                    I administrate pretty aggressively as well, but I found it only manageable, at least on Android, if you start by blocking all notifications, and then opt in very selectively. Specifically, I have every app’s notifications blacklisted in the main Android settings, and then I have selectively enabled notifications from only two (Signal and Messages).

                    Before I discovered you could do that, I found curating notifications to be too much of a game of whack-a-mole that repeatedly wasted my time and energy. Even when I’d get into a state where I was happy with the notifications I was getting, it was always temporary, because many apps will add new types of notifications when the app auto-updates, and opt you in to them by default. Then you have to try to dig through each app’s settings menu (each one different and seemingly deliberately complicated) to figure out where this new notification is coming from. Examples from the past few months of apps that have done this: Twitter, Google Maps, Maps.me. After this happened repeatedly, I got tired of it and just blacklisted them all. If they weren’t so aggressively trying to spam me, I wouldn’t mind notifications from some (e.g. I found some of the Google Maps transit notifications useful), but not at the cost of every other app update adding a new kind of notification to advertise McDonald’s locations to me.

                    1. 1

                      I have somehow never installed any notification-spammy Android apps. Well, almost — SoundHound occasionally shows some junk, but it’s so rare I haven’t even bothered to disable it.

                      The notification I see the most is “tap to update Firefox Nightly” :D

                    2. 2

                      Note that you added an important qualifier, that you receive. This is a subset of all notifications.

                      1. 2

                        I mean 100% of the push notification they ask me for permission and that I refuse. I should never have refuse something that I did not wanted first

                      2. 3

                        90% of everything is crap. 90% of HTML’s img tag usage is crap.

                        Those statements are not very useful by themselves. User have to limit number of sites that he uses or a browser, with optional extension, has to filter all the sites.

                        If I ever implement my idea of a search engine that doesn’t index ad serving and maybe also JavaScript serving sites then I will see if that kind of web is useful.

                        1. 1

                          Starting to hear neil postman’s ghost wail “I told you so”.

                        1. 1

                          does pytorch is the best deep learning programming framework so far ? How does it fit with specialised hardware (tpu) ?

                          1. -2

                            Lesson #0: be dishonnest and steal a lot of money

                            1. 2

                              Can you clarify this statement, what are you referring to?

                              1. 12

                                I don’t know about blatantly stealing money, but Microsoft has a long history of doing sketchy things typical of big businesses in other industries, and fighting it out in court. Lots of anti-competitive stuff, especially taking advantage of their large Windows install base to fuck over other companies. Things like intentionally breaking compatibility with competing software.

                                In his finding of facts for United States v. Microsoft, Judge Jackson determined that because of IBM’s marketing of Lotus SmartSuite, and other alternatives to Microsoft products (like World Book electronic encyclopedia instead of Microsoft’s Encarta[8]), Microsoft “punished the IBM PC Company with higher prices, a late license for Windows 95, and the withholding of technical and marketing support.”[9]

                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Lotus_SmartSuite#cite_ref-8

                                I don’t know how old you are but you might remember similar stuff happening with Netscape Navigator / Mozilla Firefox vs Internet Explorer in the late 90s.

                                1. 3

                                  I refer to between other things to the secret contract that microsoft has with OEM which makes you can’t basically buy a PC without paying windows.

                                2. 1

                                  I’ll add to your statement that the big firms with billions of dollars to change the world as they see fit got it through lots of dishonesty that wouldn’t fly in FOSS-driven organizations. So, the best way to get a lot done might be encouraging people to make piles of money by any means necessary to later make some improvements to the software or physical world. Even more true when one thinks about the effects of lobbying such as the recent purchase of the FCC by a handful of companies in private industry. ;)

                                  1. 1

                                    Basically you are making the classical justification of the means by the ends. Nothing new under the sun.

                                    1. 1

                                      Exactly. Best way to operate in capitalist systems if wanting to influence them heavily. Idealists mostly end up writing blog posts griping about what successful capitalists are doing. They might even get successful but not majorly influential. Any exceptions are extra rare.

                                      1. 1

                                        Strongly disagree, the best way to operate in capitalist systems is to make their best sabotage it. Definetily it will work in the long run.

                                        1. 1

                                          This one in U.S. has had a long run. The capitalists have won most of the time. They also have people working nonstop in Congress and courts on their agenda with media distracting their opponents who act much less. The combo of legal activity plus media influence has given them more victories over time as their opponents argue among themselves over details of media’s viewpoints instead of fact it’s a plutocracy. The saboteurs’ small victories are often reversed later with ease like we saw with civil rights vs Patriot Act earlier with Wheeler and net neutrality recently.

                                          Your recommendation has been failing. Whereas, new capitalists have shaken up older ones regularly. Older ones taking new directions after markets, individuals, and so on convince them to also did this. The best strategy in a system is the one that produces results. I don’t like the necessary evil approach but it’s what works. It’s not like they can’t otherwise do good as capitalists. They just need something generating massive flow of money to use to accomplish their goals.

                                  2. 1

                                    Gates turned out to be a real Robin Hood

                                    1. 2

                                      Robin Hood wouldn’t bring us a Windows Tax that robs the poor and rich alike. That includes many in desperate circumstances who might have escaped them if monopolies and oligopolies like Bill’s didn’t ensure they’d face higher-than-necessary cost of living plus barriers to escaping them. More like he robbed everyone from the poor to the rich to make a fortune he later started giving to poorer groups of people to solve some of their problems.

                                      1. 1

                                        a robin hood who stole to the poor, it’s a shiny new concept.

                                        1. 1

                                          What kind of poverty includes a windows licence? Pre mobile phone era when he made his money poor people didn’t have computers, and generally didn’t deal with anyone who did. I think you’re imagining something very different to me when you speak of poverty.

                                          Bill has personally given away over 28 billion usd, largely to help the poor (and reasonably effectively, too).

                                          1. 1

                                            poverty as in the second half of the population in any western country. For sure, the windows licence is not a problem for multimillionnaire companies.

                                            If he was able to give 28 billion usd, it is because it take them to someone first.

                                            You probably have some of classical robin hood behavior which is take to the poor to give to the poorest.

                                    1. 8

                                      Good article. I think I can sum up its main points as:

                                      1. Non-AMM (automatic memory managed) languages (C, Rust) are good for a particular class of problems. Outside that class, and with increased complexity, they become unmanageable.
                                      2. The space of systems programming used to be just C, but now AMM languages are moving into systems programming because of availability and maturity.
                                      3. The systems space will bifurcate into hard realtime (handled by Rust and C) and “other” which will be Go and other AMM systems programming languages.

                                      Seems like a decent prediction.

                                      1. 6

                                        my take is memory management is a lot more automatic in rust than in C

                                        1. 4

                                          I’ve seen it referenced as compile-time garbage collection in papers.

                                          1. 2

                                            That’s a really neat way of putting it. I’ll have to think on that more if I learn Rust later.

                                            1. 1

                                              Which is not correct, since rust still provides ref counted pointers Rc/Arc.

                                              1. 5

                                                As /u/singpolyma writes correctly, Rc and Arc are strictly library concerns outside of the language core. Several pieces of software (e.g. Servo) use their own versions of them.

                                                The interesting thing here is that both Rc and Arc are managed through Rusts static memory management (they are handles, which work through ownership and dropping).

                                                Data sharing is always a concern of any programming environment, be it manually or automatically managed. What Rcs are there for in Rust is multiple immutable ownership.

                                                1. 1

                                                  what is the version used by servo exactly (is there some documentation somewhere ?)

                                                2. 3

                                                  “provides” in a library

                                                  1. 1

                                                    Sure, but does it change anything? Shared ownership of memory is not handled by borrow checker/at compile time. Don’t get me wrong - I like rust and use it but calling it “compile-time garbage collection” is not correct - but might be nice PR move ;)

                                                    1. 3

                                                      Yes, it is. The potential allocation and de-allocation points are quite precise and handled by Ownership. Any situation of shared ownership must be dynamic and thus be evaluated at runtime, but the language handles acquiring and removing handles from memory for you transparently.

                                                      One of the issues here is that “garbage collection” isn’t a rigorously defined term, so anyone claiming that there is such a thing as static garbage collection is just as right as people that say such a thing doesn’t exist.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        Deallocation points are handled by runtime tracked reference count. Almost exactly like raii in c++.

                                                        I can agree that term “garbage collection” is vague. But this means that using it is pointless and devoid of any clear meaning.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          Deallocation points are handled by runtime tracked reference count. Almost exactly like raii in c++.

                                                          I wrote about potential points, and those are static.

                                                          Also, they happen at runtime, but not through a linked runtime system, which is usually what people care about.

                                                          Hand-rolled ref-counted pointers in C have very similar semantics.

                                                          I can agree that term “garbage collection” is vague. But this means that using it is pointless and devoid of any clear meaning.

                                                          With most people using it and attaching meaning to it in some form or the other, I couldn’t care less about that distinction.

                                                          1. 1

                                                            With most people using it and attaching meaning to it in some form or the other, I couldn’t care less about that distinction.

                                                            You don’t care about what you mean when you say that rust has “compile-time garbage collection”? What is this - Rust Evangelism Strike Force? ;)

                                                            If we are talking about compile time guarantees for resource reclamation than there is very little difference between rust and modern c++ and I don’t see people saying that c++ has “compile time garbage collection”. Moreover just like in c++, you can easily leak memory in rust. In fact it is considered safe to leak memory (either via (A)Rc cycles or mem::forget) in safe rust.

                                              2. 1

                                                I had that issue with his terminology too.

                                              3. 5

                                                Dont forget Ada and Real-Time Java used in embedded scene for some time now. Groups like Aonix supplied JVM’s and such for hard, real time. On both ends, they had “profiles” that constituted different levels of functionality so one could trade determinism against power/performance.

                                              1. 3

                                                What’s the real benifit over this as compared to mandoc -Thtml? From what I see, the mai difference would be that you’d get to write HTMl, instead of mdoc’s roff, but is this an advantage?

                                                1. 2

                                                  So you can add it to a “mandoc -Thtml” output so that a man page looks like a man page? hehe

                                                  1. 2

                                                    I was not aware you could do this. I’ll have to remember that.

                                                    1. 1

                                                      Monocypher is going down this route, actually.

                                                    2. 2

                                                      The main benefit that I can see is actually having access to raw HTML. Sometimes, you want to put a screenshot on your website so people can see what your tool does. mandoc does not support images in any way, though it’s on the TODO list for two years now.

                                                      Most people know some degree of HTML, but learning mandoc properly does take a few days of looking at well-formatted man pages and going over mdoc(7) as well as Practical Manuals: mdoc. mandoc -Thtml has the advantage that you already have written a “proper” man page that you can ship as such.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        with mandoc you have to learn man language, looks like a big disavantage

                                                        1. 2

                                                          But assuming that if you’re already going to have a man page styles homepage, you should probably also have a manpage, and you don’t have a html option for that.

                                                          And even if you disregard that, mdoc is really not that difficult to get into, and is (unsurprisingly) well documented.

                                                        2. 1

                                                          HTML is a less esoteric format than manual pages, and the HTML output of mandoc is less useful for styling than it could be, probably due to limitations of the original format.

                                                          If you try to say ‘I want the second entry in SYNOPSIS to be blue’, it seems hard/impossible to do, as the entries in SYNOPSIS are not distinguishable as such, and aren’t even distinguishable from CSS as separate entries.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          I’m no C++ maven, but is memory management THAT much of a problem in C++11 and beyond? I get that you COULD write code that has you micro-managing memory, but you could pretty easily write code that doesn’t need it. C++ gives you that option.

                                                          I have very, very little experience with Common Lisp but I’ve had bad experiences with garbage collection in it and with Haskell.

                                                          Python’s big attraction was it’s syntax and module system. C++14 and later (with auto and ranged for loops for vectors and maps and custom types) has pleasant enough syntax for the simple things I do. Python’s multiprocessing is … involved … while C++ threading has gotten a little simpler. And nowadays Python’s speed becomes an issue for me very quickly.

                                                          I do miss the module system - for example, to read a YAML file I have to do much more in C++ than Python has gotten me expecting to.

                                                          However, when I experimented with Common Lisp I really did not see that much of an advantage. For an older language it has many cool concepts, but Python has made me used to that. I realize “Macros!” but that just seems like obfuscation - if I got into Macros a lot I can easily see myself confusing the future me with my code in a way that regular function or class based code would not.

                                                          Any how, I appreciate Greenspun’s law, but I do think it’s a little bit, ok, I’ll say it, pretentious.

                                                          1. 12

                                                            Any how, I appreciate Greenspun’s law, but I do think it’s a little bit, ok, I’ll say it, pretentious.

                                                            Hmm.. maybe, but let’s consider the state of the world in 1993 when the quote originated:

                                                            1. C89/90 is just a few years old.
                                                            2. C++ is 10ish years old.
                                                            3. Common Lisp is 9 years old, on the way to an ANSI standard
                                                            4. Perl has been around for 6 years (and not widely adopted yet)
                                                            5. Lua is just introduced (1993)
                                                            6. PHP, Ruby would come 2 years later in 1995
                                                            7. Python version 1 still didn’t happen (1994)
                                                            8. TCL was a popular scripting language, 5 years old.
                                                            9. Java wouldn’t be for 2 more years
                                                            10. JavaScript is 2 years away.
                                                            11. Haskell existed, but was essentially a research language.
                                                            12. The rest of the functional world, ML, SML, Caml were academic mostly

                                                            So, almost all of the (now) commonly used garbage collected languages hadn’t even been invented yet, and there’s years of the precursors to Common Lisp, and Common Lisp on the horizon – this great philosophical and amazing piece of kit, that has super special powers, first class functions, garbage collection, conditions and restart, proven uses in AI research (even though the AI winter happened), and the things that win out are the far inferior and unsafe C and C++ because of the rise of Unix?

                                                            Maybe someone with more accurate history can paint a prettier picture, but I think the observation was certainly timely, even if it’s continued usage isn’t as relatable to today’s audience.

                                                            1. 3

                                                              I’d argue that it’s usage shouldn’t be that unrelatable today. Common Lisp is still quite competitive with pretty much any modern language. Meanwhile, many languages are still playing catch up with it.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                Absolutely agree that CL is still relevant and the original argument holds. The pure fact of matter, though, is that there are many, more in vogue languages, for which the argument would be almost as effective, and therefore more broadly appliable. “… implementation of JavaScript”, or “… Ruby,” would certainly be somewhat valid as there are obviously distinct advantages that programmers of those languages understand.

                                                                To a large population, Common Lisp equates to, ancient AI “stuff”, “Lots of Infuriating, Superfluous Parens,” C style pre-preprocessor macros (of course they are misinformed), and first class functions. Surely, JavaScript is better even without those stupid macros that I don’t need anyway!

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  I think the reason you end up putting CL into C is because the expressiveness gap is so huge you need to implement a language to get anywhere.

                                                                  I can see the argument for CL being still really better than other languages, but modern languages nowadays solve a lot of the problems that C had. Even extremely basic things in C end up requiring macros. Meanwhile in Python I have metaclasses.

                                                              2. 10

                                                                I’m no C++ maven, but is memory management THAT much of a problem in C++11 and beyond?

                                                                As always, it’s really up to your opinion. I can say that some of us consider it enough of a problem that we built Rust. YMMV :)

                                                                1. 3

                                                                  I’m no C++ maven, but is memory management THAT much of a problem in C++11 and beyond?

                                                                  Some of the comments are back-and-forth between ESR and a proponent of C++17. From the few I read, it seems like there’s a generational gap between understandings of what is modern C++. (ESR says he last used C++ in 2009, on a project whose codebase started in 2003, and he calls that “modern C++” in the comment…)

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    C++ is THAT much of problem in C++11 and beyond

                                                                  1. 2

                                                                    I will bet that rust will be conviennent for a lot further scope than C or C++. it is really pleasant to play with for a beginner

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      If the post linked is correct, the addition is:

                                                                      8259 con­tains one new sen­tence: “JSON text ex­changed be­tween sys­tems that are not part of a closed ecosys­tem MUST be en­cod­ed us­ing UTF-8 [RFC3629].” Giv­en that, by 2017, an at­tempt to ex­change JSON en­cod­ed in any­thing but UTF-8 would be ir­ra­tional, this hard­ly needs say­ing; but its ab­sence felt like an omis­sion.

                                                                      1. 26

                                                                        Another item onto the list of stupid, self-sabotaging ideas from Mozilla.

                                                                        • Pocket
                                                                        • Cliqz
                                                                        • Looking Glass
                                                                        • (Anything else I missed?)

                                                                        That said, I’m still a Firefox user, because after all, I still trust the Mozilla Foundation and Community more than the makers of the other browser vendors.

                                                                        1. 11

                                                                          Mozilla has it’s missteps, on the other hand, they are still better than the other Browser Vendors out there and I haven’t seen a viable Firefox Fork out there that works for me. Plus it seems the Looking Glass addon was inert unless specifically enabled by the user, so I don’t see the harm tbh.

                                                                          “Atleast [they are] the prettiest pile of shit.” ~ Some quote I heard somewhere

                                                                          1. 3

                                                                            I would add Mozilla Persona to this list, which was a great idea, but was mismanaged and shut down by Mozilla before it could do anything good.

                                                                            I pretty much lost my faith in Mozilla having any idea what it is doing at that point.

                                                                            1. 5

                                                                              Original Pocket introduction was mishandled, but since Mozilla owns and operates it now, integration with Firefox makes sense.

                                                                              1. 7

                                                                                is it open source now?

                                                                                1. 6

                                                                                  My understanding is, it’s not yet. It’s being worked on. I have no idea what kind of work it takes, but the intention is that it will be fully open sourced.

                                                                              2. 4

                                                                                You missed ‘Quantum.’ (The one where they broke their extension API for the sake of alleged performance).

                                                                                1. 45

                                                                                  That one I actually like; the performance is much better, and the memory leaks much fewer. Pre-quantum I was on the verge of switching to Chrome because of the performance gap and leaks.

                                                                                  1. 11

                                                                                    I agree. The browser engine is noticeably better - if only the software around it were also on the same level. Some lightweight browser like surf or midori should adopt it, instead of WebKit.

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      WebKit is easy to adopt because WebKitGTK and QtWebKit (or whatever it’s called) are well supported and easy to use. And Chromium has CEF. (IIRC Servo is also implementing CEF.)

                                                                                      I don’t think current Gecko is easily embeddable into whatever.

                                                                                      Back in the day Camino on Mac OS was a Gecko browser with a custom Cocoa UI, but doing that today would be way too hard.

                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                        I should clarify, I was talking about Servo. I don’t really thing there would be a point in using Gecko, since it will probably turn into a legacy project.

                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                          It seems the other way to me? What they’re doing instead is slowly retrofitting pieces of Servo into Gecko piecemeal. (or at least, some kind of Rust equivalent to the C/C++/JS code being replaced) Servo would then be dead or explicitly turned into some staging ground for Gecko.

                                                                                  2. 21

                                                                                    I will go beyond alleging a performance improvement, I will attest to it. Surprisingly enough, the improvement includes Google properties such as Gmail and YouTube. They are both more responsive in Firefox now than Chromium or Chrome.
                                                                                    On the extension side, I do not use a large number. Those which I do, however, still function.

                                                                                    I freely admit that the plural of anecdote is not “data”, but I would feel remiss not to share how impressed I am with Quantum. Pocket has always annoyed me, so I certainly do not see Mozilla’s actions as unimpeachable and am only giving them credit for Quantum because I feel they deserve it.

                                                                                    1. 8

                                                                                      Based on this, Quantum was a balanced update where the team had do sacrifice the old extension API. Also, it’s not that they’ve removed extensions completely. (And no, I’m not talking about you Looking Glass)

                                                                                    2. 8

                                                                                      Quantum is great. uBlock Origin and uMatrix now work on Firefox for Android just as well as on desktop.

                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                        ublock origin worked on firefox android before firefox quantum no ?

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          IIRC it worked but the UI was somewhat different. Now uMatrix is also available, and both extensions have UI that looks practically identical to the desktop versions.

                                                                                    1. 8

                                                                                      We didn’t make greater progress in physics over the 1950–2000 period than we did over 1900–1950 — we did, arguably, about as well. Mathematics is not advancing significantly faster today than it did in 1920. Medical science has been making linear progress on essentially all of its metrics, for decades.

                                                                                      Basically, all his claims based on this assertion. And to my knowledge it is blatantly false. By themself, computer, internet and mobile phone are game changer. To my knowledge, the similar game changer were the invention of writing (4 millenia AD) printing (15th century) and so internet&co (20th century). the time lapse between the two first invention are 5.5 millenia and the time lapse between the two last invention are 5 century. As such, there was a factor 10 of improvement of discovery speed due to improvement in science. I would bet that exponential progress appear to original author as linear, because when you look any exponential curves close enough it always appear linear.

                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                        A friend of mine’s who’s doing a PhD in English literature said they don’t give much weight to criticism before the 80s - they simply couldn’t synthesize as many sources as they can now with online databases.

                                                                                      1. 5

                                                                                        Calling it a “Chromium clone” undersells the performance, reliability, and security benefits refactoring the browser and gutting the old extension APIs gave.

                                                                                        I can agree with the sentiment that the transition could have been smoother, but Mozilla also gave two years’ advanced warning.

                                                                                        1. 0

                                                                                          Calling it a “Chromium clone” undersells the performance, reliability, and security benefits refactoring the browser and gutting the old extension APIs gave.

                                                                                          None of which are obvious to the end user or important enough to justify the world-wide breakage.

                                                                                          Mozilla also gave two years’ advanced warning

                                                                                          Irrelevant, because they failed to provide a fully compatible replacement API. Didn’t they also have two years to implement that?

                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                            one of the reason why there is no compatible replacement API is that it is against performance, reliability and security benefits.

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          What is harder either maintaining a whole browser WaterFox or making some software which allow to use a functionality similar to JS_Print_Setup ?

                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                            What is harder either maintaining a whole browser WaterFox or making some software which allow to use a functionality similar to JS_Print_Setup ?

                                                                                            Are you under the impression that Waterfox is a new fork, or that its maintainers have any connection to the developer who needs that add-on’s functionality?

                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                              remember: always pay a proper artist/designer!

                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                oh wow, someone spotted the font. comment on my blog: “FWIW, the ‘B Cash’ logo uses the free (beer+speech) font ‘Ubuntu Medium’. They really did just phone that in. Or perhaps they couldn’t figure out how to change the font in Gimp.”

                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                Remember (the first?) bitcoin fork? On August 8th, 2010, ~184,467,440,737 bitcoins were created out of thin air. Bitcoin had to be forked to fix it.

                                                                                                https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident

                                                                                                1. 5

                                                                                                  it is totally unrelated. bitcoin fork are related to weakness in the protocol, which have to be corrected to work as it should work. The problematic ethereum fork are here because the protocol work as it should work that is running program without human supervision