Reading makes your writing better, listening makes your accent smoother. Nothing wrong with using ChatGPT for automating what you understand is a pain, just don’t automate what you do not understand yet, same as with any outsourcing. Not using it on a weekday would make me overspend time on searching in an inefficient way arguably making me dumber, because AI works better when you give a precise question and explain the precise context — that helps with human interaction in chats as well.
A Team-as-a-Service? Would be interesting to be able to create a Python script acting like a team of sales, project management, and engineering working together with telemetry and KPIs dashboard on top. If not to deliver anything useful then as a project management frameworks learning tool.
We (humanity) need to invent a simple GPLv3 style license “You can derive any data on the data you see here, any derived data you sell or share should mention this place as a source and is subject to the same copyright as the source”. This will imply scraped datasets should become public and the law enforcement bodies will be able to work in an established framework to fight copyright and license crimes. Just blocking me from using any tools I want to make sense of the world around me (data on the internet sites being part of it) with crawlers and whatnot, is inherently evil, and is not logically consistent.
I myself almost exclusively use LLMs as a scoping/pathfinding tool, an extremely powerful version of search engine and a ultimately knowledgeable sparring partner if you will, did not even dare tasking it to write production code (so o4-mini, not Claude)
Central counterparty concept implemented by most exchanges is a valid service, as otherwise counterparty risk management would be a nightmare - an example of a useful “middleman”.
Yes, but you and I can't even talk to the exchange. We have to talk to one of many brokers that are allowed to talk to the exchange, and brokers do much more than just passing your orders to exchanges. For example, IIRC they can legally front-run your orders.
Brokers are required to give you NBBO or better. You could set up a direct connection to an exchange if you were willing to pay and were sufficiently motivated to deal with all of that
What I was actually thinking about was the infamous Payment for Order Flow, where your broker doesn't actually send your orders to an exchange, but gets paid to send them to a giant HFT firm which can do whatever it wants with no oversight, including using the information that you are about to place an order to inform their algorithms which may result in them putting out a similar order before yours.
FYI, this is false. These HFT firms are subject to the same regulation as other brokers, which is extensive. In particular, it's explicitly forbidden to front-run pending customer orders, or to share any information about them with the proprietary side of the firm. In my experience, these firms take these rules very seriously.
Looks like every man and his dog is an expert on North Koreans. Did it occur to you that most citizen there are hostages of the own state and may be fighting hard to get a piece of bread on the table? I highly doubt they give a shit to the US, or the internet or the hacker wars of any kind.
> I highly doubt they give a shit to the US, or the internet or the hacker wars of any kind.
somehow, I don't think that those are the people that are being targeted. it's the "elite" who actually have internet access, and can also eat.
those who make the decisions, and those who are friends of those who make the decisions would be the ones affected by the internet being down, not those who can barely eat and obviously don't have internet access.
Code should have a hierarchical structure, so one could read it on the high level of abstraction and also zoom in gradually, as necessary — this is what they usually mean by “code is the documentation”, plan the reading process as you plan the functionality.
It is a very important aspect of the readability, otherwise you will just sink in details when reading. But it is not easy to formally validate with tools, so naturally it is better to have both code and a picture and have discipline to keep them in sync.
> Code should have a hierarchical structure, so one could read it on the high level of abstraction and also zoom in gradually, as necessary
I agree with this. Some of the best code I've read and written was done in this style. Properly separating out components into a hierarchy of modules.
> this is what they usually mean by "code is the documentation"
I disagree with this. I don't think this is what people mean at all, because I don't think that most people do the first part. If they did, there wouldn't be so many problems with "code is the documentation". But most code is not written in a clear hierarchical fashion. Logic is weirdly commingled, and depending on the language you have an assortment of low-level bookkeeping mixed with high-level logic.
I think they literally just mean "code is the documentation". One of the best/worst programmers I ever worked with is a perfect example of this. He'd always insist on the "code is the documentation", and his code always worked. But his code was absolutely awful to read for anyone but him. By way of analogy, I don't have a file system for physical papers. I have a literal chronological (by access time) stack. No one but me can make use of it, but it's very effective for me because I have a really good memory (though not as good as it was 20 years ago, I don't actually do this anymore because I have to work with others). That's his code. No one else can go into it and actually understand it (at least not easily), but he can jump in and make exactly the necessary changes. The code is not the documentation until it's properly organized, and maybe not even then.
"make sure it's something that can actually be checked" -- I'd love to find out about a sane (not purely academic, financially viable) way to do it. Since university days I know that a piece of paper is an irreplaceable tool - cheap and universal. I usually just draw it on paper, then code, then fix the code, then update the painting, and do it over again until both match each other and work. Never fails me.
Always have a drawn picture, if you cannot draw it you will fail to explain it to others (and to see design gaps) and inevitably everyone will think it’s an over engineered complex shit.
Design-wise:
The IO multiplexing — event loop(s), the completion callbacks go to the "Processing".
Processing — usually beneficial to model as a processing graph (tree/pipeline being specific examples of a graph without feedback loops). It's a clean, low overhead abstraction, easy to visualise (and thus discuss with others), easy to change structurally or in the "aspect oriented" way.
Examples in JVM world: Netty pipelines, AKKA actors, streams, and graphs, in C++ world ASIO & its executors sub-framework.
Queues/Threads is still a sufficiently low level to comfortably operate on.
