Cordelia Green @casualwp@qoto.org

@Hanuwu Likely yes. Indeed, I've seen people who disable swap explicitly because they want OOM to kick in as soon as possible.

PRC spokesperson:

> If the US government could truly care for and safeguard the lawful rights of ethnic minorities as China does with the Uyghur and other ethnic groups in Xinjiang, the problem of racial discrimination in the US would have been solved long ago.

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1863166.shtml

@Hanuwu My understanding is that if you use swap on a fast-enough disk, there can be enough activity for the kernel to not trigger OOM.

On my machines I usually use either earlyoom or thrash-protect to prevent this.

Further reading, if you're interested:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26450960

@kino As someone from Taiwan with family members as physicians, I don't really have a reason to doubt the numbers. But what I find most annoying is that the government does all sorts of privacy-invading stuff like cellular tracking, yet practically no one is speaking up about it.

I find it pretty interesting that #Scala fans and #Golang / #Go fans seem to fall in two opposite camps -- I see a lot of people who dislike Scala end up liking Go, and vice versa.

Personally I love Scala and think that Go is too verbose, so there's that ;)

@khird

> Interest rates converge to where people are willing to lend and borrow. The upper limit for the borrower (appreciation of the business) has to be greater than the lower limit for the lender (appreciation of the currency) for such a point to exist.

This is sort of my point in the original toot -- the existence of appreciating assets (like BTC) raises the opportunity cost of lending and thus the lower limit for the lender, but this is *regardless* of the base currency.

My mind is also unset on whether deflation can raise the upper limit for the borrower, hence the ii) part.

> the fact that it is deflating is a good reason not to expect it to be useful in the rest of the economy

I would say its deflation is an incentive for individuals to hold and (eventually) use it, once it reaches a critical mass and enough convenience. BTW, from a moral PoV I also prefer BTC over an inflationary currency.

Whether this is good for "the economy" is another story, I have to admit.

> These mean slightly different things. “Doing better than inflation” means keeping your real growth above zero; “doing better than deflation” means keeping your denominated growth above zero.

Certainly. I was mostly wondering about the possibility that deflation also benefits the business via, e.g., lowered denominated costs.

> although with Bitcoin deflation as high as it’s been this winter

I would say that the recent price increase is basically speculation instead of inherent deflation caused by the limited supply.

(Honestly, as someone who got into Bitcoin quite early, I'm a bit disappointed that the price keeps going up but the adoption still leaves a lot to be desired.)

@Aurelius_17_6_313

@Aurelius_17_6
_313@bitcoinhackers.org

To be clear, I don't disagree with what you said. It's just that my question is mainly about why people think Bitcoin deflation is bad.

(IMO the fee situation needs to be improved for BTC to be a common MoE, but I digress.)

@khird

#RMS is finally back!

http://techrights.org/2021/03/21/richard-stallman-is-coming-back-to-the-board-of-the-free-software-foundation-founded-by-himself-35-years-ago/