rocqua

So mechanically Tether pockets the difference, unless they unfreeze. But as a matter of accounting, because of the unfreeze capability, the liabilities of the frozen Tether stay on the books. So they can't just spend the money. It also makes it hard for Tether to compensate the victims from the frozen funds.

The alternative would be to let Tether burn funds, but that is highly problematic for well intentioned users. Because a freeze can be challenged in court and reversed. A burn cannot.

Turns out there was decent money to be made in having your MtGox Bitcoin stolen.

The main question here is how often devices you'd want to try this against have PXE boot enabled. I'm thinking of locked down laptops mostly. Either corporate laptops, or manufacturer locked-down devices (chromebooks, I think some microsoft surfaces).

This really reduces how much we need to trust the CAs, because we can detect any untrustworthy actions after the fact. Now detecting after it happened is too late. But it does mean that mistakes or malicious actions are much more expensive to a CA. In practice this has really reduced the risk, especially to those whom aren't interesting enough to burn a valuable capacity on. Which is the vast majority of people. Though perhaps if you count TLS traffic weighted by importance that count is different.

A small part of that is more efficient administration. But the bulk of it is squeezing the customers harder, and squeezing the business for credit. Sometimes combined with a sector roll-up causing a monopoly.

Trust busting would help a little. But a lot of the pain comes from the squeezing of customers. And that’s much harder to fight back on, other than avoiding private equity.

The mathematical results are valuable as PR, but the real value might be in the improvement this can bring to other training runs.

I find this worrying because the entire economy is built on the idea of cheap physical snd cheap unskilled labor. So if we do a good job educating, we’ll need to fill these jobs by paying more rather than preying on the desperate. And I don’t see the current world being willing to pay more.

It seems instead that the process of building a bureaucracy that can support an empire is tough. And that the conditions left behind after an empire collapses are particularly tough to re-consolidate under another empire.

One might argue that this is due to size of the software community, or commercial interests. But I do believe OP was right in his description of the response of the math community as different from the software community.

Really, linux is meant to give you control over the software that runs in your computer. Anti-cheat is inherently about limiting what you can run on your computer. Windows is much more aimed at allowing you opt in to hard limitations.

This will likely strengthen NATO in the long term. But only if it doesn’t get tested by Russia in the short term.

The worry is that Nvidia is trying to control the way you run those models. Trying to bake CUDA assumptions into model design, and pushing the software ecosystem to be as Nvidia first as they can.

Model training is expensive. Model distillation is cheaper. If you train models, and that lets your adversary distill them for much cheaper, that gives your adversary an advantage. Giving your adversary an advantage is bad, so you address it.

It doesn’t matter whether the advantage was gained legally, not even if it was fair. The advantage in and of itself is bad, and sufficient reason to act. You couch it in less nakedly power hungry terms, but this is the reasoning.

Or put differently a wide exploration of long chains of obvious insights might be more valuable than a more narrow exploration of shorter chains of deeper insights. But perhaps that is a wrong sense of the difference between a small model and a large model.

It states regarding a visa: "A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to a U.S. port-of-entry (generally an airport) and request permission to enter the United States. A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials at the port-of-entry have authority to permit or deny admission to the United States. "

This data already leaks whenever you travel legally to the US, because they take it from you as a requirement of entry. All this does is let them check the data they take on entry against the provided data. Which seems fair. The fact this data is already in passports is a very different matter, but that is something the EU has done voluntarily.

In Mathematics there is much more clarity on what question you want to answer. It's much less likely you get an answer to a question, and then realize that the question was useless. Whereas in software its almost guaranteed that your first implementation, correct or otherwise, will solve the wrong problem.

Now, that still doesn’t help an LLM distinguish between good and bad correct proofs. But it still really helps a lot. On top of that, taste in proofs is a lot more uniform than taste in coding. That helps LLMs be better at judging the quality of a proof, because there’s less disagreement in the wider world.

And does it make sense that at least some people do want your identity before interacting with you?

If a company can come up with a reasonable reason to check something, then a ZKP enables that check without wider harm to privacy. But it still gives the narrow harm to privacy that otherwise wouldn’t exist.

Put differently, privacy concerns have shielded us not just from surveillance, but also from powerful control. Control in the form of “you are only allowed X if you meet criteria Y”. With ZKPs, that shield of “why would I tell you enough information to determine Y” stops working. But those conditions on X are harmful more broadly.

Take the US border checks of Social Media. Are those more OK if all of a sudden there’s a ZKP you have to give of never having called Trump a cunt in any private message?