The assertion that metals tanked because of Warsh being picked, is particularly telling. Warsh is not a hawk, despite some media narratives. The Fed is stuck behind not raising rates while the debt is coming down on banking while POTUS is crazier than ever and lowering rates to raise inflation/debase the currency and debt. It's not going to take long to see where this path leads.
Why? Because the US stable coins are an abstraction on top of US treasuries. It's effectively trading in the US debt market, not trading in crypto-hype.
The Fed is interested in converting the debt to another medium, for obvious reasons. Stablecoin looks to be the leader, since a number of the new administration have talked about it in the last decade (re: Scott Besset stablecoin speech).
I can understand why some companies want their runway in a currency that may go up during a transition (a more favorable exchange rate). There's little lossage in the exchange of USDT/USDC in the short term. Seems like a hedge strategy.
> I don't take "trust me" from a crypto bro as proof of backing funds
This is a good distillation of the inherent issue going forward with crypto. The people in tech I trust _least_ (cryptobros) are selling in a service that I require the _highest_ level of trust (finance). It's a very bad sales pitch.
You don't buy stablecoins because you trust them. You buy them because a greater idiot will. For that reason, I wouldn't be particularly bothered about getting them instead of dollars, though I'd try not to hold on to them terribly long.
You buy bitcoin because you think there's a greater idiot. You buy stablecoins as a step in the path to buying bitcoin. You don't buy and hold stablecoins.
The why stands. If the Fed got involved in transitioning the currency, which seems MORE likely under this administration (because of the grift and corruption), then they will be negotiating with the stable coin providers and the grift will follow the normal trajectory to the moon or whatever. The arbitrary "not until some independent shows the paperwork" will never be on the table.
Independent audits aren't arbitrary. They're the standard by which you can tell whether an organization is lying about their finances. Double entry accounting and receipts makes it pretty difficult to fake especially when the claim is as simple as "don't worry, we hold the backing value in treasuries." Of course, the independent part has to be truly independent and not paid for by the audited. But they refuse independent audits.
> They need to talk about how the pr itself should change.
When PRs are spammed, it's impractical to discuss each submitted change. The existence of the PRs interferes with the ability of maintainers to continue making directed changes.
> We should be using ai to chunk changes into reviewable bytes and to align on semantics and contracts.
That statement is a convoluted version of the narcissist's entitlement. ie "other people should realize my vision".
The increased review burden is also happening inside companies. It’s genuinely hard to keep up with the volume. I was a little surprised to see my comment downvoted. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be able to delete slop PRs. Of course we should! I’m saying that the pr should change at least _somewhat_ in response to how much programming is changing.
Also worth stating that I have been ranting about contract first reviews for 10 years and it’s not just in response to llm written code.
They have been unstable for decades. Does anyone still use self-hosted (running in a basement) windows servers? Running a windows machine feels like it's about as reliable as fast food order accuracy. Most of the time sure, but I hope you can afford to miss out sometimes.
Controversy doesn't change the reality. Stating that Taiwan is not independent is political posturing. Look to French Guiana, which is not independent.
The 25-hydroxy vitamin D test (aka: 25(OH)D test) is not part of a lipid panel, comprehensive (nor standard) metabolic panel, or any number of tests I have regularly. Without a specific request, it's unlikely anyone gets tested for this unless maybe you're a psychiatric patient. When I had severe depression in my 20s, a doctor did have this test done.
I think this was primarily about speeding up the measurement time.
With just two electrodes you had to wait for the device to achieve equilibrium with the material being measured. If the concentration of oxygen on the probe side of the barrier was higher or lower than the material side you would get false measurements, particularly in low oxygen scenarios because you have oxygem trapped in the probe.
By keeping the state of oxygen inside the probe constant and replacing consumed molecules you now can measure almost instantly.
Yes but how do you do that? that magical third electrode sounds harder to make than the original problem.
Edit: I think I get it now, it's a chemical reaction. By applying a voltage with some polarity to the 3rd electrode you can run the reaction in reverse. Still very hard to achieve because you have to make sure the reactions happen at the same rate with the same efficiency, which is far from trivial. This must be a very high end sensor for all this effort to make sense.
An oxygen molecule does some chemical reaction on the sensor electrode that releases an electron, maybe it's made of iron and turns into rust. If you supply the same current to another electrode to do the opposite reaction, maybe one made of rust that turns into iron, it balances.
The sensors must be consumable with a certain lifetime.
Zinc can do this too. But I like silver, its oxide has decent conductivity.
One of the common arrangements on a basic two-electrode sensor is to have one gold electrode to make contact with the electrolyte, and the electrolyte provides conductivity to a sacrificial silver electrode. With electrolyte exposed to the atmosphere through an oxygen-permeable membrane.
As oxygen makes its way through the membrane, it is consumed by the silver at a steady rate and equilibrium is achieved relative to how much oxygen is in the atmosphere. This generates a steady current which is amplified to move a needle on a gauge, where there are knobs to adjust the meter until it displays the correct amount of oxygen during calibration against a known concentration. And must also be calibrated to display zero when there is no oxygen.
Eventually even if the membrane never gets fouled the oxidized silver builds up in the electrolyte chamber and response deteriorates so maintenance is needed. Remove the membrane, polish the silver, put in fresh electrolyte, new membrane, and re-calibrate.
Adding a third electrode opens up a number of further possibilities.
One of them is the option to use an additional inert gold or platinum contact or a salt bridge as electrical reference against the original gold or silver as the sensor. Plus using a more complex circuit than a plain amplifier, apply controlled responsive current to the sacrificial silver at the same time. So rather than directly amplifying the current produced by different concentrations of oxygen existing in the electrolyte (and waiting for it to equilibrate), instead with 3 (or 4) electrodes the ionic silver concentration in the electrolyte can be maintained electronically in a steady state, and as oxygen permeates, the current required to replace the consumed silver is designed to make a dfferent kind of meter move the needle the same way as above. In this way the oxygen concentration in the electrolyte varies to a much more limited extent compared to waiting for it to be depleted from a high amount to zero before the meter will bottom out.
This can be equivalent to constant-ion electrochemical titration.
Disclaimer: I always like to handle things like this like lives depended on it, because lives depended on it.
> Disclaimer: I always like to handle things like this like lives depended on it, because lives depended on it.
You do the best you can. If you can only make inaccurate sensors, make inaccurate sensors. If you can make accurate sensors, make accurate sensors. If they're much more expensive, make both. If your competitor has more accurate sensors, learn how they work.
Because then it doesn't alter the side of the membrane where it does the reading (plus one minus one equals zero). That makes the measurement more accurate.
Specifically, if you assume a partial pressure of Oxygen and of all other gases on the electrode-side of the diffusion membrane, then you'll only see a certain number of "ionization events" per time, and you're limited in how much electrical signal you get by how fast oxygen can diffuse across the membrane. This is likely driven by maintenance of a partial pressure within the membrane. However if you re-ionize the oxygen that you deionized, then the partial pressure is much closer to equilibrium, and therefore the partial pressures are only dependent on the amount of oxygen outside of the membrane instead of being dependent on both the ionization rate and the recovery rate through the membrane. It probably makes the calculation a lot faster and more closely dependent on the environmental presence of oxygen which is what you want.
It means you do an electrochemical reaction that releases an oxygen molecule, like the original explanation said. It doesn't really matter what reaction it is, but it could for example be electrolysis, where you split 2x H2O into 2x H2 and 1x O2.
The point is this reaction is reversible. In one direction, you end up with fewer O2 molecules than you had before. In the other direction, you end up with more.
How do you add the molecule? Well, you're not just dealing with single-digit numbers of molecules. Have an oxygen tank with a flow meter for example, open the valve to release the required volume of oxygen. The ideal gas law tells you how many molecules you let out.
How do you know when you have to do it? The sensor tells you how many oxygen molecules you consumed, as a proportion of the current flowing. So just let oxygen flow into the tank at the same rate as you're consuming it. Which you know because the device literally measures how much oxygen it is consuming.
I think the real issue is that the explanation in the tweet is from a physics perspective rather than an engineering one, which means it reads like it was implemented with impossible magic.
>open the valve to release the required volume of oxygen
Mega LMAO. I can assure you this is not what's going on, at all. Also, if you release oxygen in gas form into the liquid you're going to run into a zillion other problems.
One of the golden premises of measuring things is to avoid altering what you're measuring, lol.
There are a lot of explanations elsewhere in this thread. If you've read all of them and still don't understand, I don't know how to help you further.
Mainly I take issue with the person I replied to implying "I don't understand the solution, therefore there must be some functional issue with the solution."
reply