null0pointer

What is Reddit’s plan? They seem to simultaneously hold two conflicting ideas:

1. Third party app users represent significant enough lost revenue to make it worth making the API prohibitively expensive for third party apps to run, forcing those users back to the official app.

2. Third party apps users are few enough that Reddit can afford to not compromise and lose those users just to kill off third party apps.

Are they expecting the third party app users will come crawling back to the official app? As far as I’m concerned the official app is borderline unusable compared to Apollo, for example, and I’d expect most users who have seen the light to find the official app completely intolerable.

Perhaps the presence of unofficial, basically un-monetized third party apps was flagged as a risk for their IPO by some investor types. Still, they could have found a better route to monetize those users than just killing off the apps altogether.

I would happily pay more for an account with port forwarding enabled. Maybe charging more for port forwarding enabled accounts could help offset the increased trouble caused by port forwarding abusers. It might even push some of them to other providers. Either way, this thread is evidence enough that port forwarding is a feature that people want.

As far as I’m aware Mullvad doesn’t have a method of automatic recurring payments. So they can’t operate on the gym model. Only users who want to use it pay for it repeatedly.

Awesome response. You've answered a lot of questions I've been wondering about. Thanks!

I'm not sure it's that simple. The problem is you can't have the system act intelligently[0] on the data at all. If it is allowed to act intelligently on the data then it can be instructed via the data. You could probably get close by training it with a privilege/authority bit but there will always be ways to break out. As far as I am aware there are no machine learning models that generalize with 100% accuracy, in fact they are deliberately made less accurate over training data in order have better generalization[1]. So the only way to defend against prompt injection is to not allow the system to perform actions it's learned and to only act on the data in ways it was explicitly programmed. At which point, what's the point of using a LLM in the first place?

0: I'm using "intelligently" here to mean doing something the system learned to do rather than being explicitly programmed to do.

1: My knowledge could be outdated or wrong here, please correct me if so.

> What's the point of this agonizing life support?

How about torturing companies who have abused IP/Copyright law for decades while regular users simply pirate and read/watch/listen to the things they want?

You say this as if people aren't working on finding a cure for baldness. Of course they are, the profit motive is certainly there. The demand for such a cure is incredibly high.

I've been wondering this too. How can the smart people working on these systems think that this is the right way to control them? Jailbreaks and other ways of getting them to do unintended things seem akin to social engineering to me. Even well trained humans can be convinced to break protocol sometimes, and I don't think anyone would say these things have a superhuman ability to detect social engineering attempts yet.

Plenty of clearnet businesses accept crypto.

This list was nice to learn about some apps I wasn't yet aware of. One thing the author mentioned as a "con" a couple of times is "No option for automatic deletion of messages". It might be worth noting that no app can provide automatic deletion of messages. Yes there are some apps that have messages disappear after a time but there is nothing stopping those messages from being saved by the other party before that time. If not a data export then a screenshot, and if not a screenshot then a camera pointed at the screen. If the message is to be consumed by a human then it can be recorded.

One thing I don’t like about the protocol is that LN nodes must stay online or risk having the other parties of their channels steal their funds. I know there are watchtower services to help guard against this but needing to trust a 3rd party to make sure you don’t lose your money goes against trustlessness, a core principle of cryptocurrencies. This is the reason I abandoned the idea of running my own LN node. I didn’t want to risk losing money in the case of an extended outage of my node.

> Brian said they can't list privacy friendly coins like XMR due to regulations.

I know he’s said this but it’s 100% bullshit since Kraken is able to list XMR just fine.

The linked document is a 2 page PDF in the form of a Q&A. The portion the title quote is from is as follows:

> Do you have any thoughts on the collapse of FTX and the crypto market in general? Do you expect contagion?

> I do not expect the fallout from FTX to spread beyond the cryptocurrency/NFT space. Based on the information that has come to light so far, the collapse of FTX was not a result of lax risk management, inadequate accounting procedures, or some feature inherent to crypto – it was purely fraud. With respect to the wider crypto universe – I view the asset class as too dependent on the “greater fool theory” to be a desirable investment. Fortunately, although FTX and firms like it have increased marketing of their products in recent years, the lack of any noticeable widespread market reaction to FTX suggests that they are still fairly concentrated in the hands of a relatively small subset of investors. Moreover, the differences we observed in the aftermaths of the popping of the tech bubble and the popping of the housing bubble showed clearly that credit-fueled asset bubbles create far more contagion when they ultimately deflate. There does not appear to be a significant amount of leverage dedicated to the cryptocurrency/NFT space at this time, so I do not expect contagion to spread very far beyond this particular asset class.

> It’s doxxing if the info was not meant to be public, but was leaked via some source unintentionally.

I’m not sure you’ll find many who agree with you in this definition. The natural followup to “not meant to be public” is “meant by who?” Oftentimes people are doxxed through collation of various public records, kept and published by the government. I’m thinking things like phone books, arrest records, property transfer records, business registration, WHOIS registration, and many more. Then there’s times when the victim themselves didn’t realize they were leaking information. Even seemingly innocuous photos can be used by determined individuals to get a precise location [1]. I realize this falls under “unintentional” by your definition but would it be fair to say the person doxxed themselves in this case? I don’t think so.

To me the essence of doxxing is putting together otherwise disparate info into an easily sharable package. Something which raises the profile of the individual datapoints and their relation to each other until finding the victims information is trivial for anyone with a basic search.

1: See GeoWizards fantastic series doing exactly this: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_japiE6QKWqMVC3JbyONau_0...

Which part of Scuttlebutt do you find not sane?

Is this comment a copypasta campaign from some community that hates Musk? There’s an identical comment [0] posted by another user in this thread.

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33665436

What a non-story. This is true for every market to have ever existed.

Oh no dumb people are buying stocks and losing money what can we do?

Ok restrict it so that only people with a proven track record of winning can play the stock market.

What?! Same result just with different winners??

It's zero sum. What a pointless hit-piece of an article/"study".

This is pretty clearly not a failure of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin et al. are still chugging along just fine. This is, once again, a failure of a centralized business in which people placed way too much trust. I hope SBF, and other "crypto" company execs, are held accountable for misleading customers about their offerings. Specifically calling it crypto when it's not.

Wait, why does a Bahamas based company get to choose the jurisdiction where its bankruptcy proceedings are held? Surely if they are a Bahamas company they are beholden to Bahamas bankruptcy laws?

Ok, my previous comment is a bit unclear about what I mean. In my opinion if there is a group of people, other than the participants themselves, who can control the operation of the financial service then it is not decentralized. There can absolutely be an organization that builds the service, but participants should not be forced to adopt updates and should be free to transfer their entire balance to any other service at any time.

I realize I’m on the fringe a bit with this but I think it’s not because I have an extreme idea of what defi is, it’s that there have been so many grifters in the last 5 or so years that have used the buzzword “defi” to sell their shitty reincarnation of long-outlawed shady centralized financial schemes as something revolutionary that it’s shifted the public perception of the term. I’d even agree with you that it’s an appeal to purity.

I don't see at all how you can say calling out literally centralized companies as "not-decentralized" is no-true-scotsman. It's just an obvious fact.

> What are some large, successful defi organizations today?

In my opinion, if there is an organization behind it then it is, by definition, not decentralized. Yes, even the ones that operate fully on-chain.

It’s Monday in China.

Another good example of this flexibility in C is the inverse array notation (I think that’s what it’s called, turns out it’s impossible to search because all the results are about reversing arrays).

arr[index] is equivalent to index[arr]

This works because arr points to the memory location of the zeroth index of the array and index is the offset from that memory location. Since addition is commutative so too is the array notation.

Nope.

It definitely reads as sarcasm to me. It’s easier to prosecute a false fire alarm than a false crowd-crush signal but the cost of a false fire alarm is also far greater.

In a false fire alarm you have the emergency services responding, possibly pulling them away from real emergencies, possibly fire suppression systems engaged adding property damage and cleanup, and everyone evacuating the premises wasting peoples time.

For a crowd-crush protocol I’m imagining something like this. If you see someone being crushed or fallen down and trampled you raise your hand. Possibly with some hand signal like a fist with an extended pinkie finger to disambiguate other reasons to raise a hand (like dancing at a concert for example). If you see someone giving the crowd-crush signal you also give the crowd-crush signal, this way it propagates throughout the crowd. In addition to giving the signal you will also stop moving and stand in place until the issue has resolved. At most a protocol like this would waste a few minutes of peoples time in a false positive.

Why?

Airtags are great for tracking luggage. Last time I travelled I put one in both of my checked bags and was able to track them as they moved around the airport and onto the plane. My phone in the passenger cabin was even able to receive pings from them during the flight when the bags were in the cargo hold. I have had my luggage lost before and Airtags give me great peace of mind that my luggage is headed to the destination and that if my bags do get lost I can hopefully help direct the airline staff to exactly where they are. I’ve never flown Lufthansa but this ban wouldn’t stop me anyway. The benefit is too great.

Ok, but they still didn’t actually seize anything. This is like saying they seized your bank account because they took the wallet which has your debit card in it.

I don’t see how this helps. If the law applies to Indian customers then the Indian government would just claim that they need to keep logs of customers connecting FROM India, rather than TO it. If the law is written the other way around then they could alternatively route all traffic to India with 2 hops via one of their servers in another country so that all traffic connecting TO India originates from themselves.

Hi Max, this is a really cool technology and touches a lot of areas I'm personally interested in. If I wasn't happy with my current job I'd even consider applying.

I had a poke around your documentation but didn't find a high level system architecture. Without having to dig into the open source code could you provide a link to somewhere I can read about the underlying data model and how it works? Do you have a paper or patent describing this technology anywhere? Thanks!