[HN Gopher] FTX "insurance fund" calculated by multiplying tradi...
___________________________________________________________________
FTX "insurance fund" calculated by multiplying trading volume by
random number
Author : danso
Score : 159 points
Date : 2023-10-07 18:59 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| goosedragons wrote:
| Can't that go negative occasionally too? Was that intentional?
| timmytokyo wrote:
| This is obviously just speculation, but there probably wasn't a
| whole lot of thought put into it by the coder. The goal was
| "produce a fluctuating number based on daily trading volume so
| that it looks like we have a real insurance fund". The
| randomness is simply there to help make the fraudulent
| representation less obvious. The fact that the number can (very
| rarely) go negative is just another example of the fly-by-the-
| seat-of-your-pants thinking pervasive at FTX.
| chatmasta wrote:
| Knowing FTX, they might have even convinced themselves that
| this was a legitimate hedging strategy.
| ilyt wrote:
| I'd imagine that the person writing it thought the function
| generates numbers 7500 +/- 3000 and not anything outside this
| range.
| gruez wrote:
| The function doesn't calculate the insurance fund amount
| directly, it only applies a change to the insurance fund (line
| 28), based on last day's trading volume. Presumably this
| function gets run every day, so the size of the insurance fund
| would be the sum of this process repeated multiple times. The
| chances of that going to negative would be astronomically low.
| mxmlnkn wrote:
| np.random itself with that configuration can go negative with a
| probability of 0.62% as can be derived with
| scipy.stats.norm(loc = 7500, scale = 3000).cdf(0) or by looping
| a million times and counting the negative numbers.
|
| Maybe the f2d function filters negative values but it sounds
| like a simple float-to-double conversion.
|
| I'm not sure whether it was intentional, but, contrary to the
| headline, this random value was used to update the fund size
| daily as shown in the rest of the code. So, a single day for
| which the fund actually decreases wouldn't matter much. It
| might even be beneficial to make it look more real.
| whbrown wrote:
| Since it's a normal distribution with a mean of 7500, and a
| standard deviation of 3000 multiplied by daily volume--it would
| only cause a negative change less than 1% of the time. This
| "PublicInsuranceFund" truly embodies their culture of "number
| go up".
| who-shot-jr wrote:
| import fraud
| samtho wrote:
| Isn't the bigger issue that the fund itself was fake? If they
| made the decision to set aside some amount of money to be
| untouchable based on a random number, that is, uh, unconventional
| to say the least, but they very purposefully chose not to have an
| insurance fund despite advertising that they did which makes this
| all the more sinister.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Well, yes, the issue is it was fake. But they compounded their
| fraud by publicly asserting a value of the fund, and the fact
| they implemented it as a random number shows malicious intent.
| Sometimes you can wave around incompetence etc as a mitigating
| factor, but this is clearly intentional deception and this
| proves it clearly and beyond a doubt.
| opportune wrote:
| Yes. This should be an instrumental price of evidence in
| proving that FTX leadership was not "tragically incompetent"
| but rather willfully and knowingly defrauded its customers.
| [deleted]
| doubloon wrote:
| i think when you are trying to prove a company is lying about
| having a zillion dollars of insurance, it helps if you can kind
| of pull the curtain down and show everyone the number 'zillion'
| was made up by someone throwing a pair of dice, not by someone
| counting a pile of zillions of dollar bills.
| playingalong wrote:
| How is the number being random a problem?
| svnt wrote:
| The problem is that the reason it is random is to mislead. If
| it were a static number then it would be obvious it was faked.
| The value is designed to look like it is pulled from a fund
| whose balance is determined by market conditions. But viewing
| the code, there is no fund to get the balance from, only a call
| out to random().
|
| It's like putting pillows under your blanket so someone thinks
| you're in bed. Once they find the pillows you aren't going to
| get away with "oh I thought I was allowed to be out all night."
| teraflop wrote:
| When you tell your customers that a particular number
| corresponds to something real (e.g. the amount of money in the
| insurance fund that protects their assets) but you know the
| number was actually chosen randomly with no connection to that
| allegedly real thing, that's called "lying", or in the business
| world "fraud", and you can go to jail for it.
| playingalong wrote:
| I could imagine they could possibly choose the amount
| randomly and truly deposit such amount to the fund.
| svnt wrote:
| Oh of course, but then it would be breach of fiduciary duty
| or maybe just gross negligence.
| tomku wrote:
| If you were doing that, don't you think it'd be handy to
| have a record of the amount to deposit? The random amount
| that's generated isn't even stored anywhere, it's just
| added directly to the total and written back to the
| database. What are you going to do, have another daily task
| that tops off the actual insurance fund to whatever the
| website says the total should be? Why would you treat a
| display value meant for the website as the source of truth
| about the correct value of an actual account?
|
| The only reason to do it this way is if there's no intent
| for the number to correspond to reality at all.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _could imagine they could possibly choose the amount
| randomly and truly deposit such amount to the fund_
|
| This would be bad risk management. The random number makes
| it clear that not creating the fund wasn't an oversight, it
| was a willful deception.
| kgermino wrote:
| Strictly speaking the problem isn't that it's random, the
| problem is that it's a lie. The fact it's random proves that
| the number isn't real.
|
| The RNG is used to give some variance to the number without
| accidentally making a pattern (which humans making up numbers
| tend to do). Literally using a RNG in code that's meant to
| produce a value based on real world data is blatant and hard to
| defend if true.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| It shows intent.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| >accidentally making a pattern (which humans making up
| numbers tend to do)
|
| ...and if you are stealing, repeat a few digits occasionally:
| lack of repetition has caught several-a-tea leaf.
| planetpluta wrote:
| Agreed -- isn't the problem that nothing was actually being set
| aside for the insurance fund, not that the amount being set
| aside was based on a random number?
| danpalmer wrote:
| ...and this is how this code gets written.
|
| When a software engineer writes code because the _code_ makes
| sense or solves the problem, without interrogating the
| _problem_ or how it applies to the real world, there can be
| real and significant consequences. We trust far too much of our
| lives to tech to ignore these issues when we 're on the side of
| writing the code.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > without interrogating the problem or how it applies to the
| real world, there can be real and significant consequences.
| We trust far too much of our lives to tech to ignore these
| issues
|
| Seriously, that part is a humanities problem, and many
| engineers have little education in or understanding of
| humanitities (to the point of disdaining it).
| Vespasian wrote:
| If you claim it's a fund to mitigate risk you probably should
| actually put money into said fund and not just pull some number
| out of your code.
|
| So technically it's not the randomness that's the issue, and a
| constant or manually updated fake amount would be as bad, but
| to me as a layman but it seems like they use a random number to
| imply a sophisticated risk management system.
| ngoldbaum wrote:
| Fun to see an open source project I contribute to (numpy) used to
| commit some light fraud.
| sanderjd wrote:
| I'd guess numpy has been used for _lots_ of fraudulent
| accounting! Congratulations, I guess?
| [deleted]
| eclipticplane wrote:
| At least it's _efficient_ fraud!
| eastbound wrote:
| Forgot to put the "Use for good, not evil" clause, ey?
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20130203112329/http://dev.hasenj.
| ..
| wolverine876 wrote:
| "light"?
| blacksqr wrote:
| https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1311608-arrested-development
| fhk wrote:
| Maybe abit weird ...
|
| No "import numpy as np" !?
| dabeeeenster wrote:
| This is a proper disgrace to software as a discipline. Who writes
| this?
| pfdietz wrote:
| One advantage of source code control systems is you know who to
| send to prison.
| ilyt wrote:
| Unless you make sure to only have signed commits it's pretty
| easy to impersonate someone in Git repo.
| eastbound wrote:
| So the main architect goes to prison. At one point, he put
| the system on production, so it doesn't matter who was the
| original programmer, he had to check.
| meindnoch wrote:
| admin@MacBook-Pro.local is going behind bars for a loooong
| time!
| pfdietz wrote:
| He's just the worst.
| tester756 wrote:
| I don't know python, but what is the "or" here?
|
| For me it looks like this value is used only when there was no
| data?
|
| Basically else part of monad
| sangreal wrote:
| That's on reading the daily volume. Basically daily_volume =
| daily volume or 0. It is multiplied by the random number either
| way
| maxbond wrote:
| Yeah you're barking up the right tree. >>>
| None or Decimal() Decimal('0')
|
| So if their aggregation returned no results they'd substitute a
| 0. It's a client-side `coalesce()`
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| wqtz wrote:
| I guess the dude who wrote that function thought, maybe I
| shouldn't add a docstring or any comments to that function. What
| is he/she even supposed to write "function to commit corporate
| insurance fraud."?
|
| Protip. If you are committing fraud in the future - use a
| compiled language, do not use offsite version control and UPLOAD
| ONLY THE BINARY.
| tedivm wrote:
| It's always weird when people try to give advice on how to
| commit crimes here, but it's even weirder when the advice is
| horrible.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > Protip. If you are committing fraud in the future. Use a
| compiled language, do not use offsite version control and
| UPLOAD ONLY THE BINARY.
|
| Until you get prosecuted and legally required to turn over the
| source code, as it happened here.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| Seriously, the real pro tip is, "Don't commit fraud, even
| unethical businesses don't need to do that." If your
| workplace is encouraging outright criminality, document
| everything, and either become a whistleblower or run like
| hell.
| meepmorp wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKGdhJybmT8
| ksd482 wrote:
| The bytecode of the binary could also be used to prove it was a
| random number generator, right?
| tqi wrote:
| Is python typically used in production trading systems?
| jiggawatts wrote:
| It is at FTX.
| [deleted]
| gamache wrote:
| Mastodon link:
| https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/111195068493652179
| 90-00-09 wrote:
| I always imagine large scale financial fraud as something
| requiring a great amount of financial expertise. Seeing this
| code snippet is surreal.
| a1o wrote:
| Hey, they used numpy.random.normal, it at least appears
| credible.
| neurostimulant wrote:
| It's the large scale financial fraud _that aren 't caught_
| which requires a great amount of financial expertise.
| nlawalker wrote:
| You should check out "Madoff: the Monster of Wall Street" on
| Netflix, which struggles to dramatize the actual operation of
| his scam because the reality of it was so incredibly
| simplistic.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Notice that now prosecutors not only understand code, but feel
| comfortable showing to judges and juries. Not that long ago,
| everyone's eyes glazed over at the mention of it.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| I'm really disappointed by the lack of comments explaining the
| logic
| birdyrooster wrote:
| I am sorry we didn't serve your interests
| rich_sasha wrote:
| There are, however, some type annotations.
| elbasti wrote:
| Gotta avoid bugs, imagine if they lost some customer funds
| due to poorly written code.
| bigyikes wrote:
| I was ready to reply with an " _um actually_ it is an _arbitrary_
| number" but... no... it is literally a random number. How did
| someone commit that and sleep at night?
|
| It's amazing that some people still defend SBF. Among his
| sycophants is Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball, The Big Short,
| and now "Going Infinite" which somehow manages to gloss over the
| rampant fraud happening at FTX since inception.
| sanderjd wrote:
| HAHAHA this was my first thought too!
|
| To be fully pedantic: it's both things! It's a random number
| chosen from an arbitrarily sized range around an arbitrary
| number :)
| SilasX wrote:
| Semi-related: AIUI, in most places where you legitimately
| want a "random number", what you _actually_ want is a number
| that is knowably, causally unrelated to the other figures so
| you know you're screening off accidental correlations. In
| practice, random numbers accomplish this, but randomness
| isn't quite the same thing as what you're striving for.
|
| So, for example, the problem with "randomly" picking 4 every
| time (a la xkcd) is that it introduces a spurious correlation
| between the places where it's used.
| eptcyka wrote:
| 4 doesn't originate from XKCD, it originates from
| Playstation 3's firmware. Ultimately, 4 is a random number,
| so the developer in question could argue he was
| _technically_ correct, it 's the specification that's
| wrong.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| Can you link to anyone defending him? The Michael Lewis book
| was a character study. I can't think of a single person who
| defends what happened.
| maxbond wrote:
| He describes it as a "letter to the jury" (which I interpret
| as an statement of intention to reframe the popular
| understanding of what happened - presumably Lewis knows that
| jurors aren't supposed to read editorials about the case & is
| speaking figuratively) and casts SBF in a sympathetic light
| while casting aspersions on the executives executing the
| bankruptcy. Like GP mentioned, it glosses over the red flags
| and such to present a different narrative of Lewis' choosing.
| I think it's fair to characterize Lewis as carrying water.
| It's also a character study, sure, but there's no
| contradiction there.
| benjaminwootton wrote:
| I saw a few clips of an interview with Lewis here -
| https://youtu.be/B2z8ikGLRh8?si=pqF-jUI4SeWsI4Fg
|
| The interviewer maybe edits for effect, but Lewis seems
| very biased towards SBF.
| dxf wrote:
| Matt Levine's take on _Going Infinite_:
|
| "Many of the reviews that I have read of the book complain
| that Lewis does not sufficiently explain that Bankman-Fried
| is Guilty and Bad, Actually, but that is not the book that
| he wanted to write... If you want to read a moral
| condemnation of crypto theft, you can get that anywhere.
| You go to Michael Lewis for character and story.
|
| Also, reading those reviews you would think that the book
| is a defense of Bankman-Fried, but it is actually quite
| damning."
| zeitgeistcowboy wrote:
| I'd say it's less random than the headline makes it seem. It's
| a random value with mean of 7500 and standard deviation of 3000
| pulled from a normal distribution. And, it's multiplied by the
| daily volume. So, there may be some thought here. It's adding
| about $7,500 per trading unit volume. Not saying it's legal or
| anything.
| searealist wrote:
| So basically, your claim is that a normal distribution is
| less random than a uniform distribution? Can't say I agree.
| laurent_du wrote:
| If you order randomness by entropy, the uniform
| distribution is indeed, in some sense, "more random" than
| any other probability distribution with the same support.
| [deleted]
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Well, by definition it is. It's why we have names like
| normal and uniform.
| sampo wrote:
| > Well, by definition it is.
|
| If given only mean and standard deviation, the normal
| distribution is the maximum entropy distribution i.e.
| maximally random distribution.
| uxp8u61q wrote:
| By definition it's not. It's just as random. These names
| just tell you a few key properties of the distribution.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| That's a bit like saying that our bodies are random
| numbers because of quantum fluctuations. It may be true,
| but the distribution is the part that matters.
|
| It's still ridiculous to use a normal distribution to
| calculate how much money should go into an insurance fund
| that needs to cover sudden, severe losses.
| maxbond wrote:
| You've probably just got different understandings of the
| term "random."
| jefftk wrote:
| Would you say that a function that always returned 0 or 1
| would be more/less/equally random than a function that
| returned any int32 with equal probability?
|
| I would normally say the latter is more random, because
| you're getting more entropy per call. In the same sense,
| a function drawing from a normal distribution is less
| random than one drawing from a uniform distribution.
|
| (All of this depends on a computers view of the world,
| where values are in data types that have some number of
| bits. In a mathy view of the world where every value is
| effectively infinitely many bits you get just as much
| entropy sampling from a normal distribution as a uniform
| one.)
| eterm wrote:
| > a function drawing from a normal distribution is less
| random than one drawing from a uniform distribution
|
| That's some mathematical nonsense.
|
| A normal distribution is continuous from negative
| infinity to positive infinity, so even by your flawed
| judgement of what makes something "random", a sample from
| the normal distrubtion has far more possibilities.
|
| The standard normal distribution is almost the definition
| of random.
| jefftk wrote:
| Again, it depends on whether you are looking at this from
| a pure math perspective or a "math as implemented on
| computers" perspective. I'm only claiming that this use
| of more/less random makes sense in a computational
| context.
|
| But in that context, there is more entropy in a float32
| drawn from a uniform distribution than a float32 drawn
| from a normal distribution, no?
| [deleted]
| stavros wrote:
| As I understand it, the claim is that the volume being
| added is tiny compared to the real volume.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > multiplied by the daily volume
|
| How does volume correlate to the value of the insurance fund?
| Isnt value equal to number of tokens * price per token?
| gruez wrote:
| see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37805256
|
| It basically takes the daily volume, multiplies it by
| 0.00075% (on average) and adds that to the insurance fund.
| FTX charges a % fee on every trade, so this is the
| equivalent of taking a fraction of their fee revenue and
| putting that into an insurance fund, which seems pretty
| reasonable.
| jahewson wrote:
| No it doesn't add it to the insurance fund - there's no
| transactions here, it just increments the fake insurance
| fund variable.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| In another company, it wouldn't be impossible that some
| other function in some other code used that variable for
| an actual transaction into an actual fund.
| maweaver wrote:
| Except the value isn't saved anywhere, it's just added to
| the total. And running again would give a new value.
| tomku wrote:
| If you look closely, you may notice that the code that
| "adds to the insurance fund" doesn't _take_ that money
| from anywhere. It's just retrieving a number from the
| database, adding a value to it out of thin air and
| writing it back. This number was then presented to users
| as representing the balance of the insurance fund
| protecting their assets.
|
| There was an actual insurance fund and it had a tiny
| fraction (5% or less) of what this number in the database
| claimed. The random numbers generated by this code did
| not represent actual contributions to said insurance
| fund. They were not, in fact, taking a fraction of their
| fee revenue and putting it into an insurance fund.
|
| They were not doing anything even remotely reasonable,
| this was a flat-out lie.
| protastus wrote:
| Also not saying it's illegal.
|
| The non-zero mean and relatively small standard deviation
| (0.4 sigma) make all the difference here.
|
| I'd say the ethics and legality are entirely determined by
| how this distribution was determined and if it's consistent
| with promises to customers.
| out-of-ideas wrote:
| agreed- title vs what is written in twitter is a bit
| misleading than what the code actually does. at first glance
| it is far too easy to assume the random numbers will be
| around 7500 - but in reality folks may not understand
| stddev's, and that the random number produced in this method
| can still yield a negative (just with less likelihood)
| ncallaway wrote:
| What on earth are you taking about? It's literally a random
| number taken from normal distribution, used to calculate the
| figure.
|
| What _possible_ justification could there be for using that
| as an accounting practice for a fund other than fraud?
| jmcgough wrote:
| > How did someone commit that and sleep at night?
|
| # TODO: stub for now until we have an actual insurance fund
| usefulcat wrote:
| > Among his sycophants is Michael Lewis, author of ...
|
| Also Flash Boys, which was basically a book-length
| advertisement for the IEX exchange.
| mortehu wrote:
| Fun fact for those who have read the book: IEX recently
| started paying market makers for displaying liquidity on
| their exchange.
|
| https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/fed-meeting-interest-
| rate-d...
| doubloon wrote:
| and The Blind Side, in which he missed the fact that a couple
| put an athlete into a conservatorship so they could profit
| from his royalties.
| dheera wrote:
| [flagged]
| 90-00-09 wrote:
| That's just moral defeatism. Fraud exists in many businesses
| and institutions. A healthier outlook on this is that we need
| to stop it whenever we can, not that we should give up
| because "everyone does it".
| yayitswei wrote:
| I read it to mean let's hold our governmental and financial
| institutions to a higher standard. The Fed has
| allow_negative too, are they truly held accountable?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Fed has allow_negative too, are they truly held
| accountable?_
|
| To an inefficient degree, yes. Congressional oversight of
| the Fed is massive because it's popular with many voters.
| That unfortunately crowds out oversight over the many
| other financial organs of the United States, _e.g._ the
| FHLB.
| cogman10 wrote:
| SBF did what he did outside the system because that's the
| only way he could have committed fraud like this.
|
| He ran a literal ponzi scheme, something the SEC was created
| to combat and that Bernie madoff ramped protects against up
| to 11. He could not have pulled of this scheme without
| unregulated securities, that was the point.
|
| Say what you will about finance, but the fact is you get a
| ton of information and protection when you go through the
| system. Bypass it at your own peril.
| automatic6131 wrote:
| [flagged]
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _he did commit many of the moral breeches that are
| committed by existing governmental and financial institutions
| at scale without any legal repercussions_
|
| Example? Bankman-Fried committed outright fraud. He lied and
| stole money. This is simply incomparable to what anyone in
| finance is doing, much less being left unpunished for.
| dheera wrote:
| I disagree. Banks take my money and lend it out to others,
| like businesses who are losing money, not profitable, and
| want venture debt. They take MY money, and give it to
| unprofitable businesses, with the hope that they'll be some
| day profitable.
|
| "But that's how banks work", you say. Only because you
| drunk the Kool-Aid. Only because banks are so damn good at
| managing risk that we haven't questioned the practice. But
| at the end of the day, it's my money, and they shouldn't
| have the right to lend it against my will.
|
| "But you could store money under your mattress", you say.
| If taxpayer money can provide me with the necessary
| security guards for that, sure. If not, I don't consider it
| an option.
|
| SBF was just worse than Bank of America at managing the
| risk, and got into deep shit. SVB got into deep shit but
| because the law allows them to legally commit the same
| fraud of lending out money they don't own, the law
| protected them with FDIC funds. Bank of America is equally
| in the wrong, though, it's a messed up system that we just
| accept because everyone around you accepts it.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Banks are forced to have some capabilities in risk
| management and controls because they are regulated and
| supervised to that effect.
|
| You can buy short-dated treasury bills if you want direct
| tax payers support for your money, for example. Giving
| money to a bank is lending the money to the bank with
| your permission, but there are other debtors available.
| dheera wrote:
| > Giving money to a bank is lending the money to the bank
| with your permission
|
| It shouldn't be that way. Banks should be forced to
| either (a) never lend your money out, or (b) offer an
| interest rate higher than the Treasury plus state taxes
| -- that's the only reason I'd ever _want_ to lend to
| them.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Why? That's not what a bank is... What would the bank do
| then anyway? Store cash?
| [deleted]
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Other than shutting down the economy by making all those
| assets unproductive, how would bank earn money?
|
| Use a custodian account. Put your money in a safe deposit
| box. Nobody is forcing you to use a standard bank
| account.
| growse wrote:
| If you want taxpayer-funded protection of your savings,
| that comes in return for your money being used to fund
| economic activity that generates those taxes.
|
| Thems the breaks. Take it up with your government if you
| don't like it.
| dheera wrote:
| > If you want taxpayer-funded protection of your savings,
| that comes in return for your money being used to fund
| economic activity that generates those taxes.
|
| Sure, if you give me the interest rate, sure.
|
| But if the feds are giving me 5.5%, you, as a private
| bank, better well give me 6.25% so that it's >5.5% after
| state taxes. If you give me ANY LESS than 6.25% you have
| no right to lend out my money.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If you give me ANY LESS than 6.25% you have no right
| to lend out my money._
|
| Where do you want this free return to come from? While
| also funding all the things people using a checking
| account properly ( _i.e._ not to generate a return) want
| from it, _e.g._ transaction capabilities?
|
| Again, you can literally get this by buying Treasuries.
| But you don't want that--you also want the other things.
| For free. I, too, want free things. But it's obviously
| not a serious suggestion.
| growse wrote:
| So you want to make banking dramatically more expensive
| for everyone?
|
| All that'd do is make credit hilariously more expensive
| for everyone, which will push up the price of everything.
| I'm not sure that's a good idea.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Banks take my money and lend it out to others_
|
| They' don't lie about it.
|
| > _SBF was just worse than Bank of America at managing
| the risk_
|
| He lied about it. Also, he wasn't lending money to
| anyone. He was lending it to himself. If Bank of America
| was lending most of its balance sheet to its CEO, that
| would be a problem!
|
| > _SVB got into deep shit but because the law allows them
| to legally commit the same fraud of lending out money
| they don 't own_
|
| They _do_ own it. You lent it to them. Depositing money
| at a bank is not putting your cash in custody. There
| _are_ cash custodian services, though it 's more
| traditional to custody Treasuries. You didn't go to them.
| And again, at no point were you mislead.
|
| We get these frauds every generation because money and
| banking is complicated. But instead of addressing that
| deficit with understanding, enough people deal with it by
| pretending it doesn't exist, thereby making themselves
| vulnerable to those who take advantage of that willful
| ignorance.
| [deleted]
| wmf wrote:
| The book isn't as damning as it could be but I wouldn't call it
| sycophantic. There's plenty of negative information.
| skilled wrote:
| https://nitter.net/molly0xFFF/status/1710718416724595187
| joeman1000 wrote:
| '_get_change' is written so poorly
| c0balt wrote:
| It's nice to see (from a quick lock) SQLAlchemy being used in
| production software on such a scale. However the purpose is quite
| disappointing
| Thorrez wrote:
| The line wrap on line 27 in that text editor is really confusing.
| capital_guy wrote:
| I think its a screenshot from a commit in github/gitlab. I hate
| how gitlab makes the code viewer tiny in the review screen
| mstudio wrote:
| Someone needs to run a `git blame` on that line of code!
| fishywang wrote:
| That screenshot is already a diff view, which means this is
| already from either a commit or a PR.
| wmf wrote:
| They've been discussing who wrote which git commits in the
| trial.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Thank god for https://github.com/jayphelps/git-blame-someone-
| else
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-07 23:01 UTC)