Sun Metalonis in the 3D Printing Industry

Sun Metalon

THE RECORD OF CURRUPIRA

The Lord of Space

El señor del espacio

Le seigneur de l'espace

अंतरिक्ष के भगवान

宇宙の主

O Senhor do Espaço

Chúa tể của không gian

空间之主

BUENOS AYRES AND ST. FE

BAHIA BLANCA

The Notion of Cause and the Problem of Free-Will

Hi everyone, I'm Alex from , an organization in the financial sector that has a strategic role as private advisor and auditor for major companies and investors. Recently, I have been researching a relatively massive project - Radio CACA. This is a project that became popular by the end of 2021 and attracted tremendous attention in the NFT space. The RACA token already has nearly 20 million followers on CoinMarketCap, while the Twitter channel has reached 572k followers, which are impressive numbers for a low cap coin. TokFlow However, in the process of researching and tracing the details, I discovered that the entire data of the project had been over-hyped and fabricated in a very sophisticated and blatant way. Millions of users have been led by the nose without even knowing it. So how was the community misled by the development team? 1. Testing and Collecting Phase (May to mid-August 2021) Let's rewind the time on . When the price was at 0.000019, it suddenly increased to (10 times). At the same time, Radio CACA announced the launch of the RACA V1 project and drew the attention of the community by spreading the news that the media representative is Elon Musk's mother - Mrs. Maye Musk. Unexpectedly, the price was pushed back to 0.000016 just two days later. May 16, 2021 0.000195 Also in May, there were two times when Raca prices were boosted abnormally. with the news that the RACA token was listed on MEXC Global exchange on . 0.00007 May 20 with the announcement that NFT "The Dancing Koda" was listed on the BakerySwap exchange on . 0.00005 May 26 And then it was down again and only went sideways around the price zone of for more than 2 months. 0.00002 I consider the pricing events in May as a stepping stone for the developers to probe the community's reaction to the media news, while at the same time investigating and ensuring that the market has been completely manipulated in hand, and being well-prepared for the real fight to come. (Note: Koda, a four-legged robotic dog, is one of the world's first decentralized AI robot dog projects, with optional features for data stored on the IPFS/Filecoin Network. "Dancing Koda" NFT is the perfect performance for Koda's agility. This NFT will be listed  through Radio Caca and Raca tokens are the only means of bidding.) 2. Manipulating the Market and Media The RACA’s pump plan has really taken place since mid-August. In less than one week from 16-21/08/2021, the price continuously increased and set a new peak on August 21, 2021, with the highest price being 0.00048868. What has RACA done at this time to manipulate the market and legitimize the spike in prices? On August 17, 2021, the developers announced a Metaverse discussion with CZ & Maye Musk. RACA developers were really sharp to take advantage of the prevailing Metaverse trend, and the visual effects of two prominent KOLs in the world, CZ and Maye Musk, which made the project almost go viral. Moreover, RACA is constantly releasing information: On August 18, the RACA V2 token was first introduced that enabled users to swap RACA V1 into V2, along with the burning of 50 billion V1, the remaining supply was put into the V2 liquidity group 20/08/2021: RACA token was listed on CoinGecko. 21/08/2021: RACA token was listed on CoinMarketCap. Radio CACA has successfully blinded the community with a series of beneficial news, clearly gaining the reputation in the community in terms of both media and product. In order to manipulate the market, Raca's trading volume data was also blatantly faked, increasing the credibility with the legalization community for the unexpectedly high token price. Specifically: On August 20, data aggregated on BSC Chain showed that the transaction volume reached $44,052,912, but the actual trading volume was only $29,647,125 => the fake transaction volume amounted to $14,405,787. On August 21, data aggregated on BSC Chain showed that the transaction volume reached $36,138,572, but the actual trading volume was only $27,532,908 => the fake transaction volume amounted to $8,605,664. I'm going to give you an analysis of statistics on a small portion of RACA's fake trading volume only in August - when the project was promoting the pump phase: (Click here for more information: TokFlow channel) You'll ask me: how can RACA fake such a huge trading volume, and what evidence shows that the volume is fake? Now, I'll show you evidence of bot wallets that was built up by the professional development team of the project specializing in faking the trading volume during the pricing process: (Synthetic data by ) TokFlow AI This is an example of a bot’s wallet address (0x597fa8fc25a1d74f50d86c02e86accd225e8908a) with more than 1800 transactions instantly purchased and sold at a large number of tokens. Details of a fake transaction volume on PancakeSwap: use BNB to buy RACA, immediately sell RACA to BNB in equal quantities: (Synthetic data by ) TokFlow AI Without a doubt, this isn't the only wallet address faking volume, my team has aggregated more than 400 bot wallet addresses with hundreds of thousands of similar transactions to defraud the community throughout the time, and certainly the number just doesn't stop there. You can verify the information yourself through some of the following wallets: (Click here for more information: ) TokFlow channel It can be said that, by all means of fooling the community, the developers have successfully pumped the price of RACA 250 times higher than the lowest price in just 3 months. It's a really impressive number for any trader who has been lucky enough to invest in RACA since May. However, the game has only just begun. Market makers are well prepared to play with the community in an FOMO war about price continuously for 3 months from mid-August to mid-November. 3. The Pump Scheme and Money-Making Tools , RACA announced the participation of CZ and Maye Musk in the Binance Metaverse Panel (August 26), bringing the RACA price to set a new peak at and then immediately adjusting to and going sideways at this point until the end of September. On August 24, 2021 0.0009 0.0004 The price only slightly recovered to on when RACA announced that Justin Sun was with Maye Musk at The Sovereign Robot Dog's Avatar in Metaverse conference. 0.00069 September 7, 2021 It can be affirmed that a lot of prestigious names in the industry have been revealed for the sake of the scam, in order to establish credibility and put on the perfect cover for developers to help RACA prices continuously set up new ATH. If it’s all about pumping token prices using the media and famous KOLs, the project will definitely be nowhere near as a petty scam. However, the Radio CACA development team has created an entire ecosystem as a token support tool and enticed the community to make huge profits. First of all, it is crucial to mention the game project launched in . This is a play-to-earn mini-game on the Binance Smart Chain (BSC). After more than 10 days, the development team continued to release Metamon Beta 2.0 and burned 1 billion Raca after just one day of the game's release. This is a very easy game to play, but the initial investment is quite large (4000-5000 USD for the cheapest Metamon N). The community at that time had become excited by the strong development of Radio CACA and it is not difficult to understand that the price of RACA has skyrocketed and set a new peak at . Metamon early October 2021 0.00271 (October 10, 2021) Along with Metamon, RACA also owns a number of large projects on BSC such as . Notably, the project launched the – the first and only mysterious NFTs boxes belonging to the "MUSK" boxes – in the top 4 NFT brands. There was a time that the NFT hit $73,000, while it initially cost only about $200. USM Metaverse, The United States of Mars Maye Musk Mystery Box (MPB) Radio CACA also demonstrates its "generosity" to the community by constantly offering airdrop programs to MPB owners with hundreds of millions of dollars. More importantly, it is interesting to note that Elon Musk collaborated with Radio Caca to airdrop for the holder of RACA NFT and trust the project. MPB NFT holders have the opportunity to receive cars in real life released by the Tesla company for the partnership with the Radio Caca NFT project. So far, only one person has been lucky enough to own this car. 100 CyberTruck All of Radio CACA's marketing, community-oriented strategies over the course of more than 2 months have successfully legitimized the RACA price that climbed to a new peak of and sustained sideways at around 0.003-0.004 in the first week of November, getting prepared for the developers' final pumping campaign. 0.0039 by the end of October [To be continued…] This story was submitted to HackerNoon by an independent contributor. Hence the information contained therein has also been researched and compiled independently. Disclosure:

No One Knows RACA Has Been Manipulating The Entire Community - Part 1

Nadie sabe que RACA ha estado manipulando a toda la comunidad - Parte 1

Personne ne sait que RACA a manipulé toute la communauté - Partie 1

कोई नहीं जानता कि आरएसीए पूरे समुदाय के साथ छेड़छाड़ कर रहा है - भाग 1

RACA がコミュニティ全体を操作していることを誰も知らない - パート 1

Ninguém sabe que o RACA está manipulando toda a comunidade - Parte 1

Không ai biết RACA đã thao túng toàn bộ cộng đồng - Phần 1

没人知道 RACA 一直在操纵整个社区 - 第 1 部分

The updated version of this piece is available on Words and Buttons Online: https://wordsandbuttons.online/if_i_were_to_invent_a_programming_language_for_the_21st_century.html A bunch of languages already appeared in the 21st century. Swift, Kotlin, and Go are probably among the most popular. However, the distinct feature of 21st-century language design is the absence of any distinct features in the languages themselves. The best thing about any of these is that you can spend a weekend and claim to learn a shiny new thing without actually learning anything new. They don’t have anything new in them at all; they are all made by the “something done right” formula, this something being Objective-C, Java or C. While “not being new” is indeed a valuable trait in its own right, the question arises. Are they indeed the languages for the 21st century, or are they merely the reflection on the 20th-century bad programming habits? If I were to invent a language, I wouldn’t try to fix the past. I would try to invent a thing that both fits well in the reality of the modern world, and that could evolve properly. If this requires radical design decisions — then so be it. 1. Down with the syntax! Modern languages syntaxes evolved from the freedom of chalk and blackboard put into the shackles of ASCII. While some elements of notation like arithmetical signs and brackets are more or less idiomatic, some are just made up for no reason at all apart from saving the effort of pressing teletype buttons. Typing is not an issue anymore. We are not obliged to play guess with our syntax. Things like this are indeed concise and expressive. And also fun to write. But they do not help readability and, what’s even more important, googleability and stackoverflowability. (($:@(<#[), (=#[), $:@(>#[)) ({~ ?@#)) ^: (1<#) The same goes for cryptic function names, return code conventions and attributes with obscure meaning. They served us well in the past, saving our punch-card and display space, now they deserve retirement. Ultimately this: FILE * test_file = fopen(“/tmp/test.txt”, “w+”); Should become something like this: /tmp/test.txt test_file create file for input and output as We don’t need all that brackets, quotes, asterisks and semicolons (unless they help us to express things). Syntax highlighting should work instead of syntax notation just fine. Things that are cheap in the 21st century: parsing time, computer memory, on-line search. Things that are not: development time, programmer’s memory, effort spent on-line for notation clarifications. This type of coding should facilitate the usage of cheaper things to get things done. 2. Down with the native types! You probably know this as one of JavaScript WATs. > 10.8 / 1000.10800000000000001 It isn’t, of course, JavaScript specific WAT. In fact, it is not a WAT at all, it is a perfectly correct behavior backed by well-respected IEEE 754 standard. It’s just how floating point numbers are implemented in almost any language. And it’s actually not that bad considering we are trying to squeeze an infinite amount of real numbers into 32, 64 or even 256 bits. What mathematicians consider impossible, engineers do by trading-off possibility for sanity. are in fact not floating point and not even numbers at all. Maths requires real numbers addition to have associativity. Floats and doubles do not always hold this property. Math requires real numbers to include all the integers. This is not true even for the same sized and . Math requires real numbers to have a zero element. Well, at least in this regard IEEE numbers exceed the expectations, as they have two zero elements instead. IEEE floating point numbers float uint32_t And it’s not only about floating point numbers. Native integers are not much better at all. Do you know what happens when you add up two 16-bit numbers like that? 0xFFFF + 0x0001 Well, nobody knows actually. Intuition tells us that the overflowed number should be simply . But this is not specified by any worldwide standard; it’s just how it usually goes with C and on Intel x86-family processors. But it may also result in or trigger an interrupt, or store some special bit in a special place signaling that the overflow happened. 0 0xFFFF, It is not specified at all. It differs. While floating point numbers are just moderately insane, these are entirely unpredictable. What I would propose for numeric computations instead is fixed point arbitrary sized data types with standard defined behavior on underflow, overflow, and precision loss. Something like this: 1.000 / 3.000 = 0.3330001 + 9999 = overflowed 99990.001 / 2 = underflowed 0 Of course you don’t have to actually write all the trailing zeros, they should be implied by the data type definition. You should be able select your maximum and minimum bounds for the type yourself, not just rely on the processor architecture. But wouldn’t it work much slower then? Yes, it would. But realistically, how often do you have to program high-performance computations? Well, unless you work in research or engineering that does require that, but then you’d have to use specialized hardware and compilers as well. I’ll just presume a general 21st-century programmer wouldn’t have to solve differential equations very often. That being said, shouldn’t fast, complex and unpredictable native types from the past be an option and not a default? 3. Down with the metalanguaging! There are brilliant wonderful languages designed not to do the task, but to create languages to do the task. Racket, Rebol, and Forth to name a few. I love them all, they are a pure delight to play with. But as you might guess, being fun is not exactly what makes a language universally popular. Language leverage, the ability to create new sub-languages for the task, is a great power, and it pays vastly to have it when you work in research all on your own. Unfortunately, if you have to write code for other people to understand, you have to teach them your language as well. And that’s when it gets ugly. People are generally interested in getting things done, not learning the language they’d have to forget anyway after the things are done. For other people learning your language is just an effort that would hardly pay off. Learning something common and standardized however is an investment for life. Therefore people will rather reinvent your language using standard tools than learn it. And there you go: countless dialects for the single domain; people arguing about aesthetics, ideology, architecture and all the things that are irrelevant; million lines of code being written just to be forgotten in months. Lisp guys went through all of that in the 80s. They figured out that the more of the practical part of a language is standardized — the better. And they came up with Common Lisp. And it’s huge. The INCITS 226–1994 standard consists of 1153 pages. This was only beaten by C++ ISO/IEC 14882:2011 standard with 1338 pages. C++ has to drag a bag of heritage though, it was not always that big. Common Lisp was created huge from the scratch. But the language should not be anecdotally huge. Not at all. It’s just that it should have a decent standard library filled with all the goodies people would have to reinvent themselves otherwise. It is difficult to balance hugeness and applicability. We had to learn this with C++ the hard way. So in fact, I think the language for the 21st century should be more domain specific than not. Since business applications are currently the biggest mess, perhaps it should address that and not some game development or web-design. So… The language for the 21st century should be business oriented, English-like and not dependent on any native types. Wait a minute... Did I just reinvent COBOL? Yes, I did. By Rainer Gerhards (own work (own card, own photo)) [GFDL ( ), CC-BY-SA-3.0 ( ) or CC BY-SA 2.5–2.0–1.0 ( )], via Wikimedia Commons http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0 I deliberately described COBOL features here as ultra-modern and promising to show you one thing. Language features don’t write the code. You do. It’s naïve to think that the language is responsible for the quality of code and that by adding some bells and whistles or removing some bells and whistles, we can automatically make everything better. We were not happy with Fortran and COBOL, so we invented C++ and Java only to be unhappy with them too in some 20–30 years. I feel like the issue here is much more about sociology and psychology than actual programming. Are we really unhappy with the languages? Aren’t we unhappy with all the software in general? Windows is vulnerable, Studio is sluggish, and Vim is impossible to quit from. That’s what really disappointing, not the creative process per se. But we have to blame something. Being software engineers partially responsible for the world of crappy software, we wouldn’t blame ourselves, would we? So let’s blame the tools instead! Let us reinvent COBOL again and again until one day the sun shines, and the birds are singing, and it takes 2 seconds for Windows to boot. Probably not going to happen. Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/35362905@N07/ So if I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century, I would reinvent being responsible instead. I would reinvent learning your tools; I would reinvent being attentive to essential details and being merciless to accidental complexity. All that stuff that matters.

If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century

SUN METALON

sunmetalon.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

SUN METALON

EVERGREEN INDEX #10466

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Sun Metalon WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

SUN METALON

sunmetalon.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

SUN METALON

EVERGREEN INDEX #10466

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT SUN METALON

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Sun Metalon WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!