Readit NewsOn the flip-side, T-Mobile has an app to add an eSIM to "test drive" their service on your phone for free, and I look forward to the day I can buy travel SIMs in advance on my couch at home.
The WSJ on the other hand…
1. Web3 hired a lot of these people and so they had less time to work on this stuff. Shame to spend that much on a dead end but eh
2. Scala died with Big Data. It is still around and all but noone care anymore, which emptied the room. It also happened that the whole Implicits experiment for polymorphism, which scala was really supposed to explore, did not pan out that well
3. Effects progressed but... Mostly out of view. Ocaml shipped them with its multicore, we are seeing good work on the academic side, you see Verse wanting them, etc. Same thing with linear types.
4. Dependent types ... Never really crossed to the realm of production. And Idris and co are mostly "complete" so it slowed down
5. Oh and monad interest, mostly fueled by scala, died slowly. Effect handlers seems to be a nicer solution in practice to most of this stuff.
6. Typescript killed a lot of the need for advanced stuff, same with python and ruby shipping their stuff too. Meanwhile Rust and Elixir showed you did not need the really up there stuff to have results in prod.
In the end what happened is that a lot of the highly abstract stuff was driven by "hype domain" that died, while more pragmatic but limited implementation burgeoned and absorbed some of them. Rubber met the road and that tampered a lot of people down.
There is still work being done, but rn it is more at the "experimental language" stage. Think Rust in the mid 00s.
Oh and Rust mindshare is still growing. A lot. A looooot.
Correct. Except those parties would have their own risk disclosure obligations which the CFTC could check.
It’s easy to hide leverage in swaps. They also uniquely accumulate counterparty risk, since the standard way to close out a swap isn’t to cancel the original swap, but to enter into a new, counter-balancing one. This means even a minor party failing can lead to systemic risk as positions their counterparties assumed were hedged are now levered and open. Add in opaqueness, and any swap participant going under leads to legitimate concerns about everyone else. This happened in 2008. The rules Binance helped institutions evade are the ones that were written to prevent that form of crisis re-emerging.
The question I keep pointing at though is, why does it matter? These are not retail traders. They’re institutions that are considered experts in their field and hold no customer deposits (aside from accredited investors, who are again considered knowledgeable enough to not need government oversight to invest).
Everyone here ostensibly knows the risks and their crash won’t tank i.e. the housing market or pension funds.
No, it wouldn't. Derivatives exchanges and swaps settlement requires licenses, e.g. from the CFTC. Also, the swaps analog for accredited investor is eligible contract participant (ECP) [1].
[1] https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@...