rocqua

I'm saddend by how little I care.

I used to follow this quite intensely, and wished space-X the best. But with the owners antics, I just can't get myself to care that much. At the very least, that is sad for all the hardworking people at space-X.

Tracking enforcement officials decreases their ability to enforce and makes them easier to target.

ICE agents shouldn't be doing their enforcement. Deserve to be targeted, and given there is very little transparency to their actions, anything to check their actions is an improvement.

SF parking cops are not evil, operate transparently, and limiting their capability to enforce is not important to keep rule of law applicable.

Public officer tracking apps can be okay, but only if you deem those public officers to be severely lacking in public oversight, and massively overreaching in their enforcement.

The underlying thought is that outside air (such as a forest) gets UV sterilized by the sun. So this would bring inside air up to the sterilization level of outside air.

Is the arbitrage you are describing just "buy in another country and ship more cheaply"?

This blog series by Bret Devraux keeps bringing me back to the black death, and how that reformed labor relations.

I have heard about that a few times now. But this series really emphasizes how much surplus labor the rich could extract. And hence shows how much social impact it had when that labor reduced, and could suddenly negotiate.

I wonder if the black death, and subsequent social change, might have been the best thing to happen to the peasant class.

For very similar reasons why the US has the 5th amendment, why blanket surveillance is not considered a good thing by functioning democracies, and why most people want their porn-viewing habits to remain private.

There are plenty of bad things that need to be prevented, but a functioning democracy requires the ability to act outside the surveillance of both your peers, and the currently sitting government.

On- and off- ramps suck. And there isn't much speculative value. So it misses the main 'use case' of crypto.

Its by far the best crypto-currency for making payments. But people care very little about making payments with crypto, and exchanging between Fiat and Monero is very difficult, so its not an easy payment system either.

See this very nice blog-post: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/kyc-and-aml-beyond-th...

It explains how KYC and AML law function as a stochastic control on crime. How that is difficult to do through actual laws, and what the downsides of this system are.

You forgot a few things on that list that people would like freedom for:

advocating for (or against) trans rights, protesting against the deportation of migrants, advocate against gun-control, and donating to (anti) palestinian causes

Are just a few things that people would like the freedom to do.

The point being, financial privacy is an important part of having a functioning democracy. But at the same time, financial control and limits are also an important part of a functioning democracy, for e.g. the 'freedoms' you mention. In the end, neither perfect privacy, not perfect surveilance are what we need. The best solution will be somewhere in the middle, with nuance.

But with Monero, you see that it is effectively shut off from the Fiat ecosystem entirely. The proposal here clearly lays out how bad Bitcoin is for privacy. But it's not like the more private alternatives are actually allowed to be viable alternatives.

Why would intel willingly join this cartel then?

Their GPU business is a slow upstart. If they have a play that could massively disrupt the competition, and has a small chance of epic failure, that should be very attractive to them.

I believe that VRAM has massively shot up in price, so this is where a large part of the costs are. Besides I wouldn't be very surprised if Nvidia has such strong market share they can effectively tell suppliers to not let others sell high capacity cards. Especially because VRAM suppliers might worry about ramping up production too much and then being left with an oversupply situation.

There is the timezone "Amsterdam". That isn't a fixed offset.

Looking through the original article, this date format is only available in the RFC, and then only with the Z (which makes it UTC).

Is there a timezoned version of this that is standardized?

I would still have expected that going from 0-1K to 1-2K would allow a lot more people to bootstrap themselves out of poverty. At least under the hypothesis that Poverty is a symptom of a persons circumstances, with most notably a lack of a financial buffer allowing for smart moves (e.g. the Sam Vimes theory of boots, or not being able to get a job because you cannot afford transportation).

In that case, that extra money should likely cause quite a few people to get out of those self-reinforcing poverty traps, and let them escape.

UBI has many different defenses.

One of them is that means tested benefits are harmful, and I think it's a really strong one.

But another very common defense of UBI is that mass unemployment is inevitable, but because of technological developments that cause wide abundance, so UBI can be used to make that abundance available to the newly unemployed.

The harms of means testing are many. They include:

- Massive organizational overhead to do the means testing, have appeals process, have fraud detection, and fraud punishment. - Personal overhead on those who have to 'pass' the means-testing. This can be non-trivial procedurally, and appeals tend to be very complicated. Moreover, the consequences of making a mistake that gets marked as fraudulent are severe. This makes it quite time- and stress-costly to get these benefits, and makes some people skip them. - It creates weird economic incentives, if done exceptionally poorly, it creates situations where an increase in net income causes a decrease in gross income. In other situations you get an effective marginal tax rate of nearly 100%, which discourages work and prevents the building of wealth by advancing a career.

8601, when used fully according to spec sucks. It makes today 20250902. It doesn't have seperators. And for adding a time it gets even less readable.

Its a serialization and machine communication format. And that makes me sad. Because YYYY-MM-DD is a great format, without a good name.

This is a good point, presuming the rate limiting is actually applied.

But then you rate limit that challenge.

You could setup a system for parellelizing the creation of these Anubis PoW cookies independent of the crawling logic. That would probably work, but it's a pretty heavy lift compared to 'just run a browser with JavaScript'.

My point was that AES and SHA are not the reason IOT cryptography is so often broken or missing. Instead its getting the keys onto the system in a halfway secure manner that is the blocking issue.

Hence I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about NIST guidance on these points.

That feels too reductive.

The point of these primitives is not to trade security for ease of computation. The point is to find alternatives that are just as strong as AES-128 but with less computation. The trade-off is in how long and hard people have tried to break it.

This is pretty cool. But IOT tends to fail hard on key agreement. And nothing here solves that. This seems to pretty much require a pre installed key, otherwise the overhead of securely installing a key would probably nullify the advantage of this encryption.

It doesn't take me 10000000 tokens to have the context "this was the general idea of the code, these were unimportant implementation details, and this is where lifetimes were tricky."

And that context is the valuable bit for quickly getting back up to speed on a codebase.

I wonder why we can't have one LLM generate this understanding for another? Perhaps this is where teaming of LLMs gets its value. In managing high and low level context in different context windows.

The OPs point seems to be: it's very quick for LLMs to be a net benefit to your skills, if it is a benefit at all. That is, he's only speaking of the very beginning part of the learning curve.

When I asked experts on formal proofs a year ago, their intuition was that there isn't enough formal proofs out there for LLMs to be very good at the syntax.

It's, as far as I know, quite hard to teach an LLM things it doesn't know.

That ship has sailed. DNSsec is not liked even a little bit. Given that control over DNS is how domain validated certs are handed out, it would make a lot of sense to cut out the middle man.

But DNS does not have a good reliable authenticated transport mechanism. I wonder if there was a way to build this that would have worked.

SharePoint is like exchange. It will likely never die, instead becoming a hidden layer that has been papered over 100 times.

I'm much more interested in the hardware driver. This thing gets digital encoded input, has to decode it, and then multiplex it to 8 million pixels. 60 times a second. Being able to hit at least 4 million different levels (talking about 4K 60fps 12 bit color).

The input is roughly serial, so it takes a massive serial to parallel conversion.

1A: Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of speech. (Note: freedom of speech includes the ability to listen to what you want)

2A: ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Congress making a law that prevents minors from accesing information is a clearly a breach of the first text.

Point of sale ID checks for guns are much less clearly "infringing on the right to keep arms". It is only limiting the sale, not the ownership.