I just wanted to echo this sentiment. Influx had its fair share of issues a few years ago (v0.8 migration, changing storage engines, tag cardinality issues), but the latest v1.x releases have been solid. I have been using the TIK stack (I use Grafana instead of Chronograf) for monitoring several dozen production-facing machines for 2 years now without a single issue, which I would very much count as a win.
I just hope they learned their lesson for the v2.0 release...
So, this is only to explain how to do so in the safest way. This is not to encourage people to do drugs, buying drugs is illegal. First, find a market. There are many lists of markets with reviews. I think the news site deepdotweb (dot) com maintains a good list. Then find a quality vendor. Most markets will keep track of a vendors number of sales and their reviews. The reviews should be 95%+ positive and you should read the bad reviews. In the case of LSD I'd suggest finding a vendor that sells just LSD. These are typically people who are really into LSD not just drug dealers and your interactions with them will tend to be better because they're often (not always) ideologically motivated rather than financially motivated, as such they often have better prices and service. Your prices should fall between $2/tab and $4.5/tab depending on how much you buy.
Warning: Do lookup how illegal possessing LSD is in your area. Often times the laws are somewhat insane (25 years for 1 gram of material including the weight of the tab). While it is very unlikely that anything would happen to you while buying online (it's kinda hard for the post office to detect 100 micrograms embedded in a piece of paper in a paper envelope) and LSD is perhaps one of the safest drugs to buy online. Make yourself aware of the associated risks before doing anything.
What I don't understand is that bitcoin is always referenced in value to USD, but there isn't enough fluid USD in the exchanges to match what the bitcoin network is theoretically worth. How do they decide what Bitcoin is worth, if the money that it's worth isn't actually around?
Also what happens when a big holder of BTC decides to cash out? Wouldn't it become similar to a typical bank run, collapsing the exchanges (and thus the market)?
There is no actual "worth" of all Bitcoins as a whole, whether in regard to USD nor in regard to anything else. The only thing that exists is the last price at which a non-zero amount of Bitcoins - usually only a tiny, tiny fraction of all coins, today usually not even a whole coin - has changed hands. This price, taken for every exchange, is then usually averaged to get a "market value" of one Bitcoin.
The "market cap" is then just a number calculated by taking this average and multiplying it with all Bitcoins in existence. Of course, the value would collapse instantly, if just a fraction of these is put up for sale for current market price. Actually you can witness this happening right now (try www.cryptowat.ch and just pick a Bitcoin exchange and watch how the price moves...mostly downward right now...because there's so much selling going on).
In case of Bitcoin it is even more severe, as it is rather well-known that only a fraction of the 16.5 million coins in existence is even accessible and an even smaller fraction of that is actually circulating. There are multiple millions of coins buried on wallets to which the private keys have been long forgotten. Or at least "most likely", because there's no way to prove whether a particular wallet is just inactive, but someone still has the key, or whether the knowledge about the key has been lost forever, and with it any access to the coins on it. I heard about estimates of only 8 million coins being actually accessible and in some kind of regular or irregular circulation...
> Wouldn't it become similar to a typical bank run
Yes and no.
User behavior drives the market price, certainly. But "bank runs" are only bad because of fractional reserve.
When the bank essentially loans out 80-95% of their assets in order to create more loans/credit (thereby creating $4-19 in new credit for every $1 in reserves), the run can empty reserves and there is pressure for the bank to call in loan repayments early.
BitCoin exchanges (in their core exchange role) don't create credit. They simply convert one currency into another. If an exchange also lends (so users can buy cryptocurrency "on margin"), it is acting in another role, one which is susceptible to "a run no the bank".
Yes, they clearly came with pitchforks ready, probably from feeling burned by GCP ("GCP has repeatedly declined to support Ruby Together in the work [...]").
It also doesn't seem clear that the code was forked at all, making this whole exercise pointless.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the complaint (which is possible, it wasn't actually explained very well, just through an example or two but without a definition), it does help with the complaint.
Unless the complaint is actually "I like my services to have single word monikers", in which it doesn't, but in that case I'm not sure I think it's a complaint worth addressing without some explanation as to why that's actually important.
"Google now" is not memorable, and when used in various common sentences, the words are ambiguous. You could be talking about the company or the search engine. Similar for "Assistant", though a bit less so.
Whether it's a person's name or not, I know what Siri is. There are two word brands that work fine as well. Company <very common term> though, is hard to pull off.
> Company <very common term> though, is hard to pull off.
I think when <very common term> actually describes what the service does, it's an entirely different story. If I say I'm using Google assistant to map a route for me, or answer some search terms, even if there isn't a marketing campaign that's pervasive enough to seed the service name in my memory and the memory of those I am talking to, there's a high likelihood they know or can figure out what I'm talking about. There's only so much room for people to remember service names like that and expect them to be ubiquitous. I would much rather they be called Apple/Amazon/Google assistant so I didn't need to know them. It's not like there's a high chance of me using Siri or Alexa any time soon, since I don't own any devices that provide them. I don't use Cortana because why bother, I only have that for my desktop/laptop, and I can just as easily (if not more easily) search with text generally.
Yeah, I don't want to smear the work of good people. Neil deGrasse Tyson gets/got a surprising amount of hate mail from children due to his involvement in the definition of 'planet' and the reclassification, and man, he seems like a kind and thoughtful person. Obviously, there are people who wish to see Pluto be classified a planet that don't want good people to get hate mail from children, but this isn't the type of thing that should be "sad" or even controversial.
> They know that there are programs out there to help them, but they don't take advantage of them now. Making it illegal to give them food isn't going to somehow force them to get help. It'll just make it worse for the homeless.
Are you sure? I'm not trying to attack your point, but what would happen if your homeless friends actually started taking advantage of these programs that are put in place to help them? Right now they don't need to because they are getting by on the kindness of others, but what if they had no other option but to go to these mental hospitals, homeless shelters, food banks, etc, where they could someday learn to take care of themselves and break the cycle?
I think what you're doing shows how much of a loving and kind-hearted person you are, but try to consider the other side of the argument. This is an enormously hard problem (dating back thousands of years). We need a way to break the cycle, and the current status quo just isn't working.
That's a gross generalization, almost a false dichotomy.
webnrrd2k's experience mirrors my past experiences, in that many homeless simply don't have the mental faculties to take care of themselves. This includes having enough sapience to seek out existing programs for help. Many will self medicate with illegal or stolen drugs, which only exasperates their situation.
It's very easy to project ourselves into these situations and think "What would I do if I were homeless?", and assume that if you were lazy enough and taken care of you would probably stay homeless. The fact that you are even able to jump these mental hurdles and consider these situations is why you are not currently homeless.
To help set the context, some, maybe most, of the homeless people I know have done some pretty stupid things, even committed serious crimes, but they aren't really like that now. The homeless people I know are generally the kinder, gentler types -- down on their luck musicians, artists, more intellectual types. I tend avoid anyone who is violent or "scammy".
This is just my opinion, based my my limited experience. And homelessness is a big problem, so there will be a lot of different approaches. But I see it as primarily a problem of mental health. A lot of the homeless I know were abused, or came from shitty families, or had abusive parents, or any of a number of major childhood issues and their families didn't have the financial or emotional resources to do anything about it. So I tend to see "get tough on the homeless" programs as blaming the victim. I think that forcing people to go into any kind of program or shelter or whatever is just going to lead to resentment and more problems in the long run. Most shelters are pretty bad already, and that's with people who want to be there. Imagine how bad it'll be with people who really don't want to be there.
I think it's important to keep people accountable -- E.g. Insist that if they want to be in a clean, decent shelter for three months and get meals then they need to make thrir bed, do dishes, go to group meeting daily and look for work, or see a doctor or psychiatrist, etc...
What I think they really need is a long-term program for re-integrating into society, sort of like prisoners getting out, one that includes basics like a place to live for a year or two, health care, food, as well as psychological care and job training. Many will be helped by that, but not all. Hopefully, people from the local community or church or something will be involved as well. It's also important that there be a self-help group sort of like AA, but geared for the homeless, "homeless anonymous", where people could talk openly about their life and experiences and be with others who have been through similar things.
You know, now that I think of it, I had a friend in college years ago who (previous to college) was a homeless single mom. She got on a program in California that paid her rent for a few years while she went to school. I'm not sure if it was part of Social Security or not, but I seem to remember it was a state program.
I think there are better programs, in general, for single moms and/or abused women, but I don't know much about that.
So she'd be an example of someone who took advantage of a program and was helped, but I don't think she's a good fit when people are talking about street-feeding the homeless. She was highly motivated to do something about her life. because of her kid, and didn't need much pushing to get onto a program.
I don't think anyone is advocating to let the homeless starve. We just need to realize as a society that the small act of kindness that we can provide at the micro scale (giving rides, money, food, etc) can have harsh consequences when observed from the macro scale.
This exactly. It's not like there are just a few commands to run in Linux that gets you a HIPAA-compliant server. It is a pretty long and arduous process that involves several business-level requirements, in addition to the technical ones.
I just hope they learned their lesson for the v2.0 release...