Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sgtfrankieboy's commentslogin

>You've got to love a website that makes text selection invisible by default.

First time seeing it being invisible, mostly they just disable it. Terribly annoying practice. I often select text while reading articles.


Same here!

I think it helps me read faster online, but it's probably just a fidget-y habit.


You guys are not alone, I do the same. It is indeed a fidgety habit, but also, I do it as it helps me see text more clearly due to my astigmatism.


It's literally just an alternative to Cloudflares attack protection.


Okay, and responding to their ad is an “attack”?


It might be, it's to filter out would be attackers. Normal users are just hit as well.


It's also a real option with CockroachDB, unless you need regional sharding. Which a lot don't actually need anyways.


YugabyteDB tablespaces will get you there inside of their Apache 2 license.


Switched to Firefox for like 6-12 months, eventually moved back to Edge a couple of weeks ago. Had to open it constantly anyways.

I couldn't get used to Firefox's DevTools and the JSON viewer in Firefox is bad compared to the JSON Formatter chrome extension.


Huh. I'm rather surprised you're comparing the out of the box firefox json formatting (rather good compared to chrome's non-existent formatter) to an extension. Are there no JSON formatting extensions for firefox?


I used an extension a while ago, however, it became unnecessary once the built in json view was implemented. Not sure if it's still around or whether it offers any advantage over the built in feature.


Couldn't find any that were on the same level as the one I use with Edge.


Well, Firefox's default JSON view is miles better than Chrome's JSON view.


That's analytics...


In the sense that saying "leave me the fuck alone" to someone and punching them down and kicking them are both "aggresive"...

So, yeah, they can keep this "analytics".


How do you deal with the physical object being sold without anyone caring about the NFT attached to it, and thus not transferring it?


The physical objects are protected from this by being held by independent custodians (for vaulted assets like gold) or SPVs (for things like land) generally speaking.

If we can't figure out how to prevent this for a given asset, we don't touch that asset.


So you are actually selling SPVs (or share of ownership in those) and not land directly then?


No, the land is being transferred, but it's a two-part transaction: an obligation, and then the later fulfilment of the obligation by updating the national land registry.

But part one can be done many times before part two has to be done.


So there is ownership in an SPV and the land? Sorry, I don't quite get the structure. Does the SPV "encumber" the land to make a direct transfer not possible then? If I directly own the land, what role has the SPV?


The NFT imposes an obligation on the SPV. This obligation can move around many times.

The NFT owner can then, at their option, pull the land out of the SPV (and the NFT is burned in the process!) to take ownership via the land register being updated.

The NFT purchase is still the transfer of the interest in the land, and the point where stamp duty is paid to the UK government. That's where the value transfer happens.


Thanks, I see. The NFT purchase gives ownership of SPV and directly putting the name in the land register burns the NFT, i.e., NFT does not give direct land ownership immediately? Unless, of course, direct ownership in the UK is possible without being named in the land register (interest/tax is different) - don't know the specifics there.

In other countries this could be similar to signing a contract to purchase land which creates interest and tax liability prior to entry in registry, but final source of who owns it in the end is a registry.


Yes I think that's pretty much exactly it. We operate in a way which works in 170 countries (or a few less, there are some exceptions for real estate because it's very very localised). Getting down to the legal fundamentals really helps: "who is paying who for what?" and as long as the underlying transaction is clean, clear and well-understood, there is pretty much always a way to make it work legally.


This comment helped me, was missing the NFT being burned part and seeing this is like an options contract


Like a warehouse receipt, or several other things - this pattern repeats in many different areas of trade, and what people call it and how precisely they do the legal paperwork varies.

But yes: you have the token, you have the right to the thing, and the supporting legals implement consequences in the real world or on chain via escrows if that right is not met.

https://medium.com/union-finance-updates-ideas/union-partner... for example.


Meta just got a 265 million euro fine because their stuff was too open and people/companies scraped the data of 533 million users.

Best way to stop people from scraping (and getting fines) is to require an account.


Which DB doesn't support UUID as a type so I can make sure to never use it?


More than you'd think... including the venerable MySQL.


Because they save us ~20 thousand a month in bandwidth cost.


We got 10k visits in a single day. Cost of data transfer: zero


Really zero, like non of the visitors was hitting the original servers? That would be impressive then. And you should consider to make money with delegating the traffic, not give away the traffic for free.


I mean, I did not went into the rabbit hole of checking thoroughly, but in cloudflare it says we served 8gb and aws says we served just a few megabytes.

You configure to ignore everything, even the url querystring, and worst case scenario, they serve your site from an internet archive snapshot. You can literally power off your server and the page stays online


Hyperloop is crap, just go with highspeed trains. They get the job done in city corridors.

But you can't have a train stop in front of your house... Nor can you build massive tubes everywhere in place of cheap roads.

Walking, Bikes, Busses, Metros, Trains, Cars, Planes. They all have a place in how we transport, right now the distribution between them is just out of whack.


For anything except sparsely populated rural areas, a train gets you to the city/town, and a mix of public transport + e-bike/e-scooter gets you to your final destination. This is potentially quicker, and much much more efficient than lugging 2-ton capsules around and needing hundreds of thousands of square km of land to keep the things parked 95% of the time.


Hyperloop is still cool because you could have really fast transit over large areas. Mass transit across cities is still quite slow. High speed trains are fine but just not fast enough. Imagine a large city where you could get from one side to the other in only a few minutes.


Musk coined Hyperloop as a distraction to high speed rail. He wanted people to buy Teslas instead of thinking about high speed rail in California. A lot of people fell for his con.


It is a shame that other partial vacuum systems are not being developed. They seem like a useful concept, fast, less air resistance means less energy use. Surely a technology you'd want to have in a future city.


On concept level they kinda make sense. But the trade-offs are just too stupid. Basically it is equivalent of building tunnel around all of the roads. The energy investment in that sort of infrastructure is unfeasible. And then partial vacuum, that needs more infra and energy to be spend.

And then the safety, on ground level open air is great, you can exit at any point to any direction. But tunnels especially small ones... That would be nightmare in best case and death trap in the worst.


why does it need to be a vacuum system? Couldn't a similar device be a pod-like maglev device that floats above a magnetic track and maybe can temporarily hover albeit more slowly via some drone-like propeller on the bottom when 'off track', or for final-mile portions, could even turn into a car when not in maglev mode.


I gather that you never used public transport in Tokyo.


If you chose to build a train with only two stops, yes you could get from one side to the other in only a few minutes. That would have its downsides, like the station not being near your destination, which is why it's rarely done. You would also need a very straight track, which means lots of space for points (places where trains separate from the route onto platforms). This constraint is also shared by Hyperloop.


Tunnels might now be cheaper to build than roads just because of land rights. It's very difficult/impossible to acquire the property rights to build a new roads/rail lines nowadays.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: