treyd (u/treyd) - Readit News

treyd commented on I hacked Monster Energy bobdahacker.com/blog/mons... · Posted by u/speckx

dustractor · 4 hours ago

Completely irrelevant to the article, but next time you come across one of those internet crazies who think the Monster logo is satanic, you can troll them by pointing out that it is really just an Ugaritic L -- 𐎍 -- and that one of the original names for the Hebrew god was EL so really Monster is a godly drink, not satanic.

treyd · 4 hours ago

I thought it was the other way around, that the individual mark is interpreted as a 6 so it's 666?

treyd commented on U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel cnbc.com/2025/08/22/intel... · Posted by u/givemeethekeys

jjcm · a day ago

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening.

On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is investing BUY INTEL SHARES" media event. These things should follow a strict set of rules and processes so investors and companies know what to expect. These kind of deals should be boring, not a media event.

treyd · a day ago

If a company has truly become too big to fail that it makes sense for the federal government to bail them out, then why are we even leaving the welfare of the company up to private industry in the first place? It's just asking for ways to siphon taxpayer money out of the government through their willingness to buy shares. It inflates the stock price because it shows that the government might buy more share in the future at market rate. Its operations should be required to be more transparency, since if they're large enough that their failure would dramatically impact the welfare of the whole country, their operations should be subject to more direct democratic will (at least, more direct than the many steps removed from what is happening to Intel).

treyd commented on Code formatting comes to uv experimentally pydevtools.com/blog/uv-fo... · Posted by u/tanelpoder

alkh · 2 days ago

I enjoy using uv a lot but am getting afraid that it is getting bloated for no reason. For ex., the number of niche flags that a lot of subcommands support is very high + some of them seemingly achieve the same result(uv run --no-project and uv run --active). I'd rather them working on improving existing tools and documentation than adding new (redundant) functionality

treyd · 2 days ago

Are they baked into the main executable or are they separate binaries (a la apt, cargo, etc)?

treyd commented on Go 1.25 Release Notes go.dev/doc/go1.25... · Posted by u/bitbasher

Mawr · 11 days ago

Did you cherry pick that part of the sentence and ignored "(compared to a hierarchy of abstract classes, dependency injected implementations, nested pattern matching with destructuring etc etc)." on purpose or?

treyd · 10 days ago

Yeah this is exactly the stuff that you'll have to reinvent yourself on an ad-hoc basis in any sufficiently large project.

I would argue it's sorta related to Greenspun's tenth rule: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule

Of course, you'll probably retreat and say "Go is better for small projects", but every large project started as a small one, and it's really hard to justify rewriting a project in a new language in a business context.

treyd commented on Go 1.25 Release Notes go.dev/doc/go1.25... · Posted by u/bitbasher

leoqa · 11 days ago

I quite frankly will just read the code. Go generally discourages abstractions so any code you jump into is fairly straightforward (compared to a hierarchy of abstract classes, dependency injected implementations, nested pattern matching with destructuring etc etc).

Regarding your IDE issues- I’ve found the new wave of copilot/cursor behavior to be the culprit. Sometimes I just disable it and use the agent if I want it to do something. But it’ll completely fail to suggest an auto complete for a method that absolutely exists.

treyd · 11 days ago

> Go generally discourages abstractions so any code you jump into is fairly straightforward

This is a really anti-intellectual take. All of software engineering is about building abstractions. Not having abstractions makes the structure less easy to understand because they're made implicit, and forces developers to repeat themselves and use brittle hacks. It's not a way to build robust or maintainable software.

treyd commented on Monero appears to be in the midst of a successful 51% attack twitter.com/p3b7_/status/... · Posted by u/treyd

greazy · 11 days ago

What's their objective?

treyd · 11 days ago

My guess would be to turn the crank of a ponzi scheme until it falls off.

However,

> Qubic's AI-training work is performed by CPUs, same as used by RandomX (Monero's mining algo).

I don't understand how this makes any sense at all.

treyd commented on Monero appears to be in the midst of a successful 51% attack twitter.com/p3b7_/status/... · Posted by u/treyd

im3w1l · 11 days ago

You could do it with a whitelist. If there is a fork, give disproportionate weight to blocks mined by a whitelisted participant when doing the longest-chain calculation. Ideally you should include the proof of being on the whitelist in the block itself, but if that's not possible for some reason you could always send the information off-chain.

treyd · 11 days ago

If you're doing a whitelist of trusted parties you might as well do classical BFT without the mining.

treyd commented on Monero appears to be in the midst of a successful 51% attack twitter.com/p3b7_/status/... · Posted by u/treyd

Etheryte · 11 days ago

Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't pass the sniff test. If a 51% attack was successful, every other miner could easily spot this and would stop mining. The fact that this has not happened is more trustworthy than a random guy on Twitter.

treyd · 11 days ago

Unless the attacker was actively choosing to exploit the 51% hashrate power they have then it would still make economic sense for remaining minority miners to keep mining.

treyd commented on Monero appears to be in the midst of a successful 51% attack twitter.com/p3b7_/status/... · Posted by u/treyd

blueprint · 11 days ago

A couple researchers have told me that it's not necessary to even reach 51%. It's probably something closer to 35% to maintain the ability to perform censorship etc

treyd · 11 days ago

Not quite. You can make selfish mining economically viable below 51%, which eats into the profitability of the majority, but it's not possible to sustain a long term censorship attack with that.

With PoS protocols, >33% is usually when you have the ability to inhibit finality, which may be what you're thinking of.

treyd commented on Monero appears to be in the midst of a successful 51% attack twitter.com/p3b7_/status/... · Posted by u/treyd

nomilk · 11 days ago

Newb question, but why's it expensive, aren't they mining the whole time and can therefore make the usual money from that mining?

treyd · 11 days ago

You are correct. It's expensive if you want to go rewrite history. 51% is when that becomes economically viable to do on its own.