EGreg

Instead, many languages have fibers / coroutines / etc. which simply start new stacks elsewhere, and capture the context.

  Q.Data.variant()

And on the back end, you'd use it like this:

https://github.com/Qbix/Platform/blob/main/platform/classes/...

Essentially, this can support a huge number of "variants" and within each variant you can have N equal segments. That will help you do A/B testing and flipping features on or off.

Same with AI. Now that the Mythos and other models are finding exploits in every code base and anyone can run them, you can’t afford anymore not to keep burning credits securing your code base. It’s like proof of work red queen theory. You have to run faster and faster just to stay in place. Great business model.

Training these neural networks every few months isn’t energy-heavy?

Both Bitcoin and these large models weren’t “designed to be energy-heavy”. It was a consequence of first-gen design decisions to solve a specific problem. Then as time went on, costs went down and they became a huge outlier in terms of energy. The question is whether the bagholders (the AI companies that invested untild amounts into the initial training) will fight to keep people using their tech and fearmonger about everything else.

Actually, platforms that serve many customers can bring down the costs tremendously through caching, and don’t need the AI credits as much: https://safebots.ai/costs.html

“Always has been.”

https://www.techmonitor.ai/technology/microsoft_forget_to_re...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWrRqUkJpMQ

So Linus was right? But for a second reason too:

C++ is a horrible language. It’s made more horrible by the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it’s much, much easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if the choice of C were to do _nothing_ but keep the C++ programmers out, that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.

That is, accepting C++ code from programmers who use C++ could be a SOX violation ;-)

Some communities will do better than others, but when they start running out of federal dollars, their local currency will ensure people can still eat, and plumbers will still get off their ass to fix leaks.

"Wildcat currency" was indeed a lot more unstable before the US blew them out of the water with "the greenback", which was issued to finance the civil war, backed by land taxes and tariffs, and then they passed laws making it "legal tender" for all debts, even the private ones.

Banks have been working with the US government hand in glove, if credit money is the vast majority of our M2 money supply, where do you think all that new money comes from that enables people and businesses to pay back all the loans with interest? Who do you think bails out those banks and forces them to buy treasuries? and so on.

I started Intercoin in 2018 to try to fix this. Let every community have its own coin, and Intercoin acts like the internet of coins... interconnecting them. We raised about $1M, and built the system, but we couldn't compete with the zero-sum games and scams in crypto, because investors and even "crypto VCs" wanted to just 10x at the expense of everyone else. And also regulators don't actually allow creating fake volume, which is table stakes to be listed on CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko and taken "seriously" by crypto investors, so it instead became a business where we go town by town, community by community, influencer by influencer: https://intercoin.org/currencies.pdf

I've interviewed lots of economists from different schools of thought, such as community currency economists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXTn52kL0Yo

I've also interviewed regulators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocrqgkJn4m0

And also founders of decentralized networks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWrRqUkJpMQ

And there's a lot more resources on https://community.intercoin.org that discusses this stuff. But Intercoin kind of failed as a "crypto" project, because we were unwilling to stoop to what projects did in order to attract capital.

Here goes. Our towns and cities need to create our own money supply, especially to survive the coming depression (Both Keynes and Hayek would agree). The vast majority of our money is currently issued by banks, which have exactly the opposite incentives, they will issue less credit and on worse terms the more you need it. In fact the banks love to lend to the ultra-rich (including the guys who pay $0 in taxes and use their shares as collateral, while having their corporations buy back the stocks).

If you want to tinker around the edges, keep using their money. But in a world where AI makes everything cheap, why not have communities roll out their own money, and pay UBI in it? Waiting for the federal government to issue UBI is a fool's errand (not even Nixon was able to get it done, as president, much less someone like Andrew Yang who I supported and built campaign apps for, http://yang2020.app).

The community acts as the source and the sink of the money. And since we don't want to "trust" any given member of the community to operate the database, we need... a blockchain. I know, this is where I will get heavily downvoted for mentioning that (I have a feeling that there is even keyword matching to do it automatically). But... what is the alternative?

https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basi...

The alternative is that people keep relying on giant corporations to give us jobs, and on giant banks to issue our money supply, while they just siphon more and more money to the rich. But any time someone says "hey, we have the technology to self-organize and serve each other" there are people frothing at the mouth angry at this person. Frankly, towns could build socialist cooperatives for everything, e.g. their own Uber without the shareholder class taking most drivers' salaries. AI makes it easy. But the main thing is making our own money supply, and giving it out as UBI to each citizen to spend on food, robots, etc.

They could have said the same about transistors. People keep inventing new ways to keep the costs down. Just look at the latest Qwen, DeepSeek, BitNet. Interesting tidbit: they’re all open, and as Google said in 2022: they have no moat.

I have found that the best answer I have is:

1) Gossip and use the existing ontology and add new items only if genuinely needed

2) Combine synonyms, sometimes using vector embedding and cosine similarity during search

The insight is that trees are not a storage constraint but a traversal consequence — any walk through a graph starting from a given node produces a tree as a byproduct, and different starting points or orderings produce different trees from the same underlying structure. Rather than forcing a choice of canonical hierarchy at write time (the dentist-bill-goes-in-which-folder problem), you store the graph and let the tree emerge lazily from context: whoever is querying, from wherever they enter, gets the tree that is relevant to them, and no connections are sacrificed to produce it.

In general, federated systems have this quality emerge. For example, in OpenStreetMap, one group can label Nagorno Karabakh, the other Artsakh, and no one has to fight Google etc.

That’s whats happens in two sided markets. Everyone’s the product.

The original adage of “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” doesn’t necessarily rule out the converse. The fact that the grandfather comment made a freudian slip makes it funnier.

What the startup does is make a verifiably trusted, zero-configuration, turnkey environment for businesses to move their data into and run AI workloads on, without worrying about their data being stolen, or some Agents doing unpredictable things. The environment is super-secured, with no ssh. It's an appliance, with over-the-air M of N updates. Think more "Tesla car" and less "OpenClaw". That's the foundation.

That environment then builds everything around a graph database, for people, organizations, and even code. We have Grokers that can ingest a codebase statically once, and then present the graph databases as a far better "RAG" than cosine similarity and pinecone vector databases.

At its most basic level: Agents can't be trusted. We want predictable Workflows, not agents. They can do 99% of everything Agents can, if done properly, and the remaining 1% are the dangerous parts https://safebots.ai/agents.html

It's a lot of innovations at once, including:

Collaborative Bots that are safer than agents.

Workflows and tools that can read, reason and propose actions.

Policies that must be satisfied before actions can be taken.

Logging of everything. Verifiable security and audits for SOC2 compliance etc. etc.

Everything is configurable and designed for serious businesses, not a grandma that finished a Chinese course on how to install OpenClaw on her terminal and not get pwned

I spent way too much time on actually building this — with Claude and double checking everything — so an article I publish can be OK to push out. We aren’t building a bridge for thousands of cars here, it’s an article.

A lot of things are automated and 95% of the time they are correct. The key is knowing whether the last mile is worth fixing, if the consequences are minor.

Why don't you write all your assembly code yourself? Why do you use a compiler? Why do you generate images, when you can draw them yourself? You're supposed to add value.

I don't think preparing a list of all the threats, editing it and publishing it for others is a "waste". I'm not publishing random stuff, this is important and in line with what I want people to know.

Some people on HN downvote any criticism of AI, other people complain that things are written by AI. If you're such big fans of AI being used more and more, then accept the consequences!

The point isn't that you can't run the deep research. Everyone now has more capabilities, and if you want to waste time and tokens you can do it. The point is someone has done the work compiling these, and made it available once, for everyone to read. Think "caching". It has the exact amount of information needed to show the details of every attack. There is a lot. Sadly making it "concise" will remove information -- there is that much.

I do usually make edits to an article after I get it from an AI, as an editor would do when a writer submits something. I hate having AI shibboleths like "It's not X. It's Y". So I make it more humanized. But at the end of the day, the article does what it's supposed to do: make people aware of things in one place, rather than have to research it themselves every time.

(Have them cover their own token costs, hehe).

Leaving no one to say anything anymore on their behalf.

What we really need is collaboration online to make sense of the footage being uploaded.

And the same for any kind of news. Why do we need the capitalist model again? Look at Wikipedia, Linux, open source software, and more.

https://community.qbix.com/t/the-global-war-on-end-to-end-en...

And by the way, this article mentions other things already in place, such as being able to commandeer your device and spy on it without breaking encryption:

https://community.qbix.com/t/increasing-state-of-surveillanc...