A new Mlem icon :)))

thank you! Oh. it seems user is blocked on lemmy.ml or something like that, so i cannot participate in this discussion or even see the post and answers within my instance.

Since I cannot reply where, you can post my reply if you wish: 2 points:

1. more complex closure and not only control flow, it can be simple arithmetic expression as well, results in actually smaller assembly on arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf target.
2. I don’t think the loop unrolling plays a big role here. sort_unstable_by() is using quicksort and I suspect that complex closure was outlined to a separate fn, and not copied to quicksort anymore.

While post body contains control flow, it can be simple arithmetic operation instead and it will lead to the similar result, so not the control flow itself causing this. It seems more complex closure blocks some optimizations here, thus quicksort having less instructions. I suspect that complex closure was outlined to a separate fn, and not copied to quicksort anymore.

Folks , if you have any thoughts , please do share

Thx for info

Thx

so folks, what the correct one? Apache License 2.0? European Union Public License ? GNU Affero General Public License v3.0?

i don’t care about licenses or ip, if you want to use, modify or sell it, you are free to do this, you got my personal permission… anyway, if you here to propose better license , I’m all ears.

on Reddit it would be something like r/AccidentalAlienation

Nice!

It’s not technically the same as chasing losses because the bet doesn’t technically resolve until you try to sell your Bitcoin. Unless you’re selling your stake and only then deciding whether on not to buy more, the theoretical final value of your Bitcoin could be anything.

you may consider it resolved at any time and stop it. Simplifying, same logic may apply to a casino, where you change money to chips, make bet, lose and consider it not resolved till you not exchanged chips back to money.

In that sense, DCA does make some sense in the hypothetical final accounting. UYour payout is whatever price you sell at, and your buy-in is a weighted average of the prices you bought at. For something like a stock portfolio where you actually have reason to expect the overall value of your investment to grow over time (because the economy generally grows and your portfolio is spread across a broad swathe of it) the math does work.

but we are not speaking about stocks here, we are speaking about bitcoin and there is nothing that backs idea that it will grow over time. If we are not expecting any positive long term outcome , dca is just a kind of martingale strategy.

Wer so etwas Blödes unterstützt, kämpft gegen die eigene Zukunft und die Zukunft der eigenen Kinder usw. Idioten. Alle solche Initiativen sind gegen Arbeitnehmer gerichtet ,um nur es ihren das Leben schwerer zu machen und die Gehälter niedrig zu halten.

Let me guess, a capitalist class and their hired politicians? :)

if it was promised as a “store of value” or in simple terms “price will go up forever infinitely”, what kind of use cases to expect? Fun part is that they attracted gamblers with this false promises and now losing the same gamblers because bigger and nicer bubble appeared.

If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.

I already explained it - independent events - so you made a bet , it resolved as loss, if you “averaging” you basically hope to make another bet to cover losses. That’s it. The only reason you make second bet is that you falsely think that the win would be high enough to cover loss from previous bet. So you just make 2 bets thinking it will increase you chances to win and cover initial losses , but in reality you make 2 independent bets