@SethCotlar A digital pointer that holds information about an asset that exists somewhere else, and whose “ownership” is tracked by a big network of other computers.
@SethCotlar That’s the technical part; the complexity and stupidity is in what happens based on that, and the unfounded assumptions that get layered on top of the technical baseline.
@SethCotlar Like: Some people pay money to other people to get them to announce a “transfer of ownership” for a given token on that big network… and assume that means they own the thing the token “points” at. It’s a bit like “owning” the bit.ly link to a NYT article.
@SethCotlar Without an additional layer of actual legal promises and contracts and agreements in the “real world” it’s just a very, very expensive way to trade URLs. And in almost all cases that layer doesn’t exist. It’s just URLs as Tulip speculation.
@SethCotlar Sorry, that went way over one tweet :D
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, a cryptocurrency business was rolled for $30m. Thing is, it wasn't "hacked;" Someone just found an edge case in the code that defines the 'smart contract' inherent to the business model, and used it to "trade" a few Mono tokens for millions of dollars, draining their funds.
What I find interesting is that it illustrates the dangers of an article of faith in cryptocurrency: "there is no law but the contract, and that is good because the contract is unambiguous, executable code."
One of the more nuanced breakdowns of Bari Weiss' career arc, from John Ganz' The Political Economy of Reaction. johnganz.substack.com/p/the-politica…
Reminds me of a side conversation we had with @danieleharper and @_Jack_Graham_ on @idsgpod, in reference to Weiss' membership in the ~Heterodox Opinion Havers Society~. Ganz compares Bari and her fellow-travelers to the losers of 18th c Paris' crumbling linterary class.
I don't know enough about the history of the era to assess Ganz' comparison in detail, but I think there's something to be said for the theory that ostensibly diverse figures like GG, Tucker, Bari, and others desire both radical chic AND establishment security.
It's impressive how densely packed these two tweets are with the language and social cues of abusive Christian fundamentalism.
For those who don't recognize them, Moore here is obliquely responding to the "exvangelical" movement that's been blossoming over the past few years.
I can't say whether the movement is *numerically* significant or not, but it's certainly had a social and cultural impact: people, many of whom experienced religious abuse and trauma in authoritarian spiritual communities, are leaving *and talking about why*.
This has thrown certain fundamentalist systems of control into a tailspin, like a referees trying to give someone a penalty because they quit the game. Matt's opening statement acknowledging "bad experiences" is a weak concession to keep potential exvangelicals on the field.
This afternoon's system-design ramble is brought to you by LEGO Part Number 41530: "Propeller 8-Blade, 5 Diameter."
I've talked before about the ways the LEGO building system demos important qualities of consistent, flexible, growing systems. One of the most important ways it "keeps its promises to itself" is ensuring pieces use recurring magic numbers for their measurements and proportions.
Those magic numbers become critical when pieces connect to each other; rods fit, heights of stacked bricks match, etc. Even if pieces weren't explicitly designed to work with each other, their interactions with the *system* of measurements and connections does the heavy lifting.
IIRC it was Dell that really popularized the JIT manufacturing philosophy, back in the days when computers were purchased like cars — you hoped someone had the configuration you wanted in stock.
This was also the era when the best way to get a deal on a Mac was waiting for Apple to announce a new model… then waiting 6 months for them to auction off a huge pile of the old model at cut rates.
Quite a bit of the complexity we end up helping *our* clients navigate, regardless of vendor, boils down to "making sense of a complex multi-product integration…"
The divides between products, even from one vendor, are about underlying mental and architectural models, assumed workflows, etc, not just consistent branding and "they all have the same SSO now," so acquisitions take a lot of time and work to really integrate.