Bitcoin will greatly reduce the power of the state, which rests entirely on its capacity for
violence. This capacity is maintained by paying and equipping people to commit violence on its
behalf, and it acquires the resources to do so by printing money, collecting taxes, and issuing
I don't do as much deep thinking as I used to. When I was a kid, I remember imagining what
it would be like if the universe was symmetrical, mirrored right down the middle. I imagined a
white room, floating in space, right on the plane that separates the two halves of the
universe. If you parked your spaceship outside and opened the door, you would see yourself in
front of you, opening the same door. It would be the you from the other side of the
Thought of a hilarious idea for a manga and eventually anime when it inevitably gets super
It takes place in Japan, but only because that seems like the only appropriate setting for
The story is about a twenty-something bachelor. He wants a dog, so he adopts a beautiful
female malamute from a shelter.
However! When he gets home, he realizes that the dog has the most beautiful human-looking
vagina he has ever seen. Like, all-time-top-voted-post-on-r/godpussy tier. Of course, since
it's an anime, you only ever see it pixelated.
Then, basically the entire show revolves around him trying to resist the temptation to fuck
his dog, and situations that make it hard to resist temptation. His catchphrase is "Inu ni
makemasen!" / "I won't lose to the dog!"
Like, for example, in one episode he leaves out a jar of strawberry jam, and the dog gets
into it, and then when the dog is done eating the jam, it pulls its snout out of the jar, and
there's strawberry jam on its mouth in the exact shape of sexy lipstick. This of course sends
him into a fit of desire, and he has to like, I dunno, take a cold bath, or watch sumo
wrestling or something to resist.
In the final episode, he's taking the dog for a walk in a dog park, and he sees another dog
running around, and notices that it has a huge, beautiful human penis. (Pixelated, natch.) He
then look over and sees its owner, who's a beautiful woman his age. They lock eyes and
instantly fall in love.
I can't decide if it's a happy ending, where he gets this great girl and the two dogs with
beautiful junk get each other. Or if it's a darker ending, where he has sex with the woman for
the first time and her pussy is absolutely ruined, and he realizes that she hasn't
resisted temptation and has been getting railed on the reg by her dog and its huge human cock.
Or afterwards he asks her how it was, and she says "It was okay…" in a super wistful voice, and
then looks over at her dog, while the color drains from his face as he realizes the truth.
I'm not sure whether it should be called Wanko Manko, which means "Dog Pussy" in Japanese
but rhymes, or Venus in Fur, as a play on Venus in Furs by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.
For some reason I'm fascinated by the debris in this vacuum product photo. If you look
closely, you can see that it's several specific kinds of debris. Uncooked grains of rice,
sunflower seeds, maybe coffee beans, and clumps of hair. I'm imagining some intern getting just
the right debris ready for the photo.
The complex priority system that the state is using in many countries to roll out the covid
vaccine is reminiscent of this plane boarding algorithm:
Yes, it is optimal. No, it won't work in real life.
The state, of course, ignores this. Its reach exceeds its grasp, and we are left with
fragile, sub-optimal, poorly implemented plans that are, without exaggeration, worse than a
free-for-all, and much worse than market allocation.
The state makes the same mistake in all spheres, because it makes no distinction between
designing policy and implementing policy.
The opposite of this is design for manufacturing, where designers of a product modify a
design with manufacturing constraints in mind, even if it makes the design worse on some axes.
The final outcome, of course, is substantially better.
The product is subject to fewer delays, costs less, and can be made in higher
However, we cannot expect the state to grasp this simple wisdom, for it is utterly bereft of
the incentive to do so.
I was trying to find an image reference for what different clipper guard lengths look like.
Every single reference I found had different models with different hairstyles, or used
illustrations instead of photographs.
After searching a bit, I found this video, which shows the same person with different hair
lengths, with the hair uniformly short over the whole head.
I think it's quite interesting that a random YouTuber may have created a best-in-the-world
reference, even if it's for something as mundane as haircut lengths.
As an unrepentant degenerate and fan of microeconomics, it should come as no surprise that I
find the online sexual economy endlessly fascinating.
Most of what happens there isn't surprising to me, with the exception of pricing for online
sexual services, which is much higher than I would have expected.
As an example, take private, one-on-one cam shows. Browsing reddit.com/r/sexsells, the going rate seems to be between
$2.50 and $5.00 per minute, or $150 to $300 per hour.
This is mysterious to me.
Looking at ads on eros.com, offline prostitutes seem to
charge $300 an hour. This isn't the amount advertised for a one hour session, but the marginal
difference in price between a one hour and two hour session, and thus a reasonable estimate of
the hourly rate, when preparation and travel are factored out.
Given that private cam shows are legal, can be done at home, and require minimal equipment;
while offline prostitution is physically dangerous, illegal, unpleasant1, and highly taboo, it seems strange that they are
priced roughly the same.
A priori, I would have expected a price difference of 10× or more, like $300 per hour
offline and $30 per hour on cam.
In an October 1935 article in Esquire. Hemingway offers this advice to a young writer:
The best way is always to stop when you are going good and when you know what will happen
next. If you do that every day when you are writing a novel you will never be stuck. That is
the most valuable thing I can tell you so try to remember it.
Reformulated for programmers and equally valuable:
The best way is aways to stop when you are going good and you have just written a failing
test. If you do that every day when you are writing a program you will never be stuck. That
is the most valuable thing I can tell you so try to remember it.
If you start programming for the day, a failing test to fix will get you right back on
Instead of having to muster willpower to get started and brainpower to figure out what you
were doing and what to do next, you can mindlessly do whatever it is that will fix the
After that, you'll be much more likely to be in the flow of things, and be able to keep
going in good spirits.
The PS5 was released about a week ago, and, predictably, it is impossible to get one. All
retailers, online and IRL, are sold out. Of course, consoles are available on Ebay at ruinous
prices, so at least the scalpers are doing well.
Economists, of course, are wringing their hands and mumbling about Vickrey auctions. What
Sony should do, they mutter, is to hold a daily auction for PS5s, and let the market decide the
The economists are, of course, quite right. If Sony auctioned off PS5s there would be no
lines, no scalpers, and no uncertainty. You could put in a bid at the price that you wanted to
pay, and then simply wait until demand had died down for your bid to be filled. As a bonus,
Sony would make more money for producing something that people wanted to buy, and more capital
to ramp up production.
Unfortunately, the economists don't get their say here, because of their arch enemy,
non-economists. Non-economists, or, normal people, as they are otherwise known, as far as I can
tell, don't understand that there is such a thing as an inescapable trade-off. They want
everyone to get a PS5, everyone to pay MSRP for it, there to be no scalpers, nobody to ever
make a profit from demand exceeding supply, and all things to be fair, based on confused and
self-contradictory conceptions of unfairness.
So, companies can't hold auctions for scarce goods, and have to set an MSRP, produce
whatever they can, and hope for the best.
I wonder though, if there might be some way for a company to hold an auction for their
products, but in a way that would be perceived as fair.
Here is one possible setup for such an auction, using Sony as the example company, and the
PS5 as the example product:
Sony sets the MSRP of the PS5, $499.
Sony produces PS5s, and every day holds an auction for that day's production. Losing
bids roll over to the next day's auction.
Every time a PS5 is sold for more than the MSRP, the difference is added to a
Every time a PS5 sells for less than the MSRP, that difference is subtracted from the
Auctions continue whenever the reserve pool has a positive balance, or demand is higher
Essentially, any time someone pays over MSRP for a PS5, they ensure that eventually, someone
will get a PS5 for less than MSRP. If someone rich or impatient buys a PS5 for $1000, two less
impatient people can eventually buy PS5s for $250.
I think, perhaps, this would be perceived as fair. But, with real people, you never
I feel like BGP would be a great place to experiment with PKI systems, possibly with some
additional global consensus mechanism.
BGP has well known security flaws that cause real problems. It is very common that
misconfigured or malicious route advertisements cause outages or redirect traffic to an
attacker. (C.f. BGP hijacking against Bitcoin miners.)
Some kind of PKI system which let AS operators associate one or more public keys with
their AS, and handled transfers of IP space between ASs, would allow BGP updates to be
signed by the AS owner's key and totally eliminate this class of vulnerability.
Additionally, it would allow ASs to end-to-end encrypt and authenticate BGP
communications. BGP updates aren't exactly sensitive, but why not, ya know?
There are around 60,000 ASs in existence, so a modest 7 tx/second message rate would be
enough to process an update to each one 10 times every day. If the purpose of the network
were just to handle public key updates, likely only a small fraction of this would be
needed for routine and emergency key updates.
There are 837,482 IP prefixes, so these could be turned over once every 1.5 days or so.
IP blocks move relatively infrequently, like AS keys would, so this is probably
AS operators are usually well funded, and have ready access to compute, network,
rackspace, and skilled humans. If running some kind of box with not-totally-crazy resource
and maintenance requirements marginally increased their security, they would all do it.
AS operators have a high degree of control over their network peering relationships, and
many large networks have direct physical connections to multiple other ASs. This mitigates
the risk of partitioning and starvation attacks somewhat.
There is a high degree of cooperation, goodwill, and existing relationships between AS
operators. This makes me wonder if schemes that I usually see as not fit for use in
cryptocurrency contexts, like Ripple-style consensus systems, might actually work in the AS
context. Ripple has no credible mechanism to deal with consensus failure if network
operators disagree on the state of the network, and there are many incentives that might
cause Ripple network operators to disagree on network state. However, in the AS context,
there is little reason for network operators to disagree, and they are highly motivated to
such disagreements out of band.
Maybe no global consensus mechanism is necessary, and some kind of simple PKI would be
good enough! However, it would be very nice if the current network consensus could be
summed up in a small amount of data , such that it would be easy and low-bandwidth to
discover if you were out of sync with the network, or being partitioned in the case of
GIMME THAT BIG BISCUIT SHREDDED WHEAT BOM BOM BOM THAT BIG BISCUIT SHREDDED WHEAT
I just published a simple crate that performs lexical path cleaning: lexiclean.
Lexical path cleaning simplifies paths by removing ., .., and
double separators: //, without querying the filesystem. It is inspired by Go's
Clean function, and differs from the Go
version by not removing . if that is the only path component left.
I implemented this for a command line
utility I'm working on, but split it off so others could use it.
There are a few reasons I prefer lexical path cleaning to fs::canonicalize:
If the input is a relative path, the output will be a relative path. This means that if
the input is a path the user typed, and the output path is displayed in an error message,
the message is more likely to make sense to the user, since it will more obviously relate
to the input path.
It simplifies some-file/.. to . without any fuss, even if
some-file is not a directory.
It never returns an error, because it makes no system calls.
There are some reasons you might prefer fs::canonicalize:
fs::canonicalize respects symlinks.
fs::canonicalize always returns an absolute path. (Although you can do
std::env::current_dir().join(path).lexiclean() if you want an absolute
Are there any other reasons to prefer one over the other? I'd love to hear them!
It is very lightly tested! If you intend to use it, I encourage you to submit additional
tests containing paths you might encounter, if you think the existing tests don't cover them.
In particular, I haven't thought about all the exotic prefixes that Windows paths might be
adorned with, so there might be bugs there.
I don't expect to modify the crate or add features to it beyond what I need for my own
purposes, so if there are additional features you want, please consider opening a PR! Of
course, if you find a bug, I will happily fix it.
The Muslims claim Mohammed was the last of the prophets, and that after his death God
stopped advising earthly religions. But sometimes modern faiths will make a decision so
inspired that it could only have come from divine revelation. This is how I feel about the
Amish belief that health insurance companies are evil, and that good Christians must have no
traffic with them.
The post is about the advantages of the Amish health care system, which seems to have much
lower costs and equal effectiveness when compared to conventional American health insurance
centered health care.
The post is gripping (well, at least if you're interested in why American health care is so
expensive), so I recommend reading it. But briefly, the Amish seem to have much lower costs
with the same quality of care due to:
Getting a discount because they have a reputation for paying their bills on time.
Not going to the doctor for little things.
Not suing doctors, and thus not getting excessive medical care because a doctor is trying
to avoid a malpractice lawsuit.
Aid and cost sharing being run as nonprofits.
Keeping administrative expenses low.
Not taking risks with their health.
Avoiding excessive spending, because costs are shared by the community.
I wonder if much of this could be replicated with, not an insurance plan, but, something
else… an "uninsurance plan":
The uninsurance company would not directly or indirectly cover any medical expenses.
This would make it very cheap.
The uninsurance company would bargain collectively on behalf of its members.
Uninsurance members that did not pay their medical bills in a timely fashion would be
kicked from the plan and be ineligible to rejoin.
Uninsurance members would be forbidden from suing for medical malpractice except in
cases of gross negligence. (Unsure about this one, since it seems to open up members to
abuse, but if it's a net benefit, why not?)
Provide members with a health savings account. Health savings accounts are
tax-advantaged savings accounts that allow members to pay for qualifying medical expenses
from the account. Although the Amish don't have HSAs, giving members access to an HSA
should be cheap, and so shouldn't increase the cost of uninsurance. Additionally, since it
is the member's own money, it doesn't introduce any perverse incentives.
Give members access to the negotiated price lists up-front, to allow and encourage them
to comparison shop. This might be tough, because health care providers keep these prices
secret, so they can play hard ball with insurance companies that they negotiate with. But,
being able to see what you're going to pay for something is a prerequisite to trying to
save money and shop around, so this would be ideal.
The uninsurance company would be run as a nonprofit, or public benefit company.
Since the uninsurance plan is not insurance, it would be uncomplicated to supplement it
with an additional insurance, cost-sharing, or risk pooling, scheme to cover unexpected
costs, similar to Amish Hospital Aid. This additional scheme would not be run by or
affiliated with the uninsurance plan, in order to avoid increasing costs for
I suspect that such a plan would be very cheap, to make a number up, perhaps no more than
$10 per month. If it were only $10 per month, and members got an HSA, they might want to join
just for that. And, if they got insurance-negotiated rates when paying out-of-pocket while
being uninsured, the would almost certainly be willing to pay for it.
Such an uninsurance plan would encourage consumers to plan ahead, shop around, and save for
medical expenses in their HSA, maybe giving them health care approaching that of the
USG was always this this incompetent, this inefficient, this craven, this self-serving. It
just needed external stresses requiring a competent response to reveal the extent of its
Although given that Popcorn Time's servers do not themselves host infringing content this
may seem a bit unfair, it is simply the reality of the world we live in.
It is interesting to note, however, that although web browsers can be used in exactly the
same way as Popcorn Time, namely searching for and viewing copyrighted movies, the developers
of web browsers have thus far not faced successful legal challenges.
Computering is a party. The stack is best visualized as a bunch of Jenga blocks on the
floor, and the heap as a bunch of balloons floating around bumping into each other on the
ceiling. The fact that the stack usually grows downwards in memory is a travesty.
I saw a janitor sweeping dirt from the fronds of his enormous push broom with a normal-sized
Investing in cryptocurrencies is not the same as buying simple equity in a company.
Although each company has a different business model, they and the equity they issue are
largely structurally homogeneous. They hold their monies in banks, pay for their expenses with
wire transfers and cheques, follow prescribed rules of accounting, and issue stock that
operates according to well understood rules. This is not to say that said practices are good or
bad. They are simply a known factor.
Cryptocurrencies and tokens, however, are structurally heterogeneous. They have different
codebases, modes of operation, levels of complexity, and security models. Although broadly
lumped into the same category, they can, by the nature of these differences, have almost
nothing in common.
Investing in one is like buying stock in a company with novel business models, banking
practices, and accounting methods, and furthermore whose stock is issued under a bespoke scheme
and follows unique trading rules.
Accordingly, a much, much greater level of care is required when making such investments. If
any one of these novel mechanisms fail, your investment may go up in billowing smoke and flames
This is not to say that you should completely avoid cryptocurrencies and tokens, just, you
know, do your homework.
Programs first crawled from the murky oceans as simple lists of instructions that executed
in sequence. From these humble beginnings they have since evolved an astonishing number of ways
In fact, most programming paradigms simply amount to different ways to transform a linear
source file into a program with nonlinear behavior.
gotos that unconditionally jump to another point in the program
an abort instruction that stops the program at some point other than the end
a macro facility that substitutes one instruction for one or more other instructions
a source file concatenation facility that concatenates multiple source files
an include directive that is substituted for the contents of a source file
structured repetition and selection, a la for, while, if, and switch
subroutines and functions
array oriented programming that replace explicit repetition with implicit repetition
first class functions which delegation of behavior to the caller
object oriented programming with dynamic dispatch, which allow the runtime type of an
object to determine which instructions to execute
aspect oriented programming, pattern matching against the structure of the call stack to
execute instructions when functions are called or return
event driven programming, executing instructions in response to external events
declarative programming, which essentially delegates execution of one program to
This is pretty nuts. I was poking around in the storage area of my house, and I found a huge
cardboard box filled with letters and audio cassettes and dust. Everything was Danish, German,
and English, but mostly Danish. The name Max Rasmussen was everywhere, so I think it was all
his stuff. I had to get a tape player at best buy to play the tapes, but surprisingly, they all
played fine. One of them was an interview, in English, between Max and a man named Hans. I
listened to it a few times, and I don't even know what to say. It's transcribed below.
"Well," he began, moving closer to her, "declarative programming is when you tell the
computer what you want, and then the computer figures out how to get it. Pretty sweet,
"What kinds of things can you tell the computer you want?" she asked excitedly, her cheeks
beginning to flush.
He thought for a moment, and began stroking her hair gently. "All kinds of things. There's a
language called prolog you can use to ask about logical relationships. In SQL you can ask
questions about huge quantities of data. With a program like bison you can declaratively
describe a language, letting bison generate a program that recognizes it."
"Oh," she said breathlessly, leaning her head on his shoulder, "so I don't have to worry
about choosing an algorithm--the computer will pick one for me?"