sepositus

Yes, the protocol is going to be open and the plan is to submit PRs to various projects when we're at that point. It's not really an "either or" with ygddrasil but more like a "both and."

> I've been interested in doing something similar in the past, but I could really never solve issues like domain squatting and stopping individuals from claiming every name possible

I think that's just a property of a naming system. Without something like a centralized threat of force that can know every person participating in the system - there really is no recourse. The approach we are taking is making it difficult to create a speculative market around names which seems to be the driving force behind squatters.

Happy to discuss it in more detail: hackernews@sepositus.com

(Note: that's an alias that goes to my email address which I avoid putting in public places for obvious reasons).

I am in the process of co-founding a new protocol which creates a decentralized root of trust using normal plain-text names (i.e. `foo.bar`). One of the goals I hope to obtain is allowing domain-style lookups of private websites hosted on P2P networks. It's lofty, but the dialog used by OP is _very_ close to why I think it's necessary.

How specific is the law? What if side loading requires a "trusted" signed certificate where trusted means from Google Play?

Not even playing devil's advocate, just wondering how many loopholes actually exist.

Usually I find the hype is centered around creating software no one cares about. If you're creating a prototype for dozens of investors to demo - I seriously doubt you'd take the "mainstream" approach.

Always sounds so interesting and then I do a search only to found out it's another product trying to sell you your 20th "AI credit package." I really don't see how these apps will last that long. I pay for the big three already - and no I don't want to cancel them just so I can use your product.

This is a valid observation. I wonder though if people who have been coding for decades, but choose to use AI assistance, would fall under the same AI slop category. It’s an interesting dilemma because the overwhelming amount of content getting posted just ends up breeding a ton of negative feelings towards any amount of AI usage.

It's most likely because people just assume it's a misogynist quote.

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times."

But it immediately forgets the results of step 1 by the time it hits step 3 (due to context rot) and starts inventing action items.

Wow, this is literally the story of my team. Luckily there’s enough autonomy for us the escape the gravitational pull of the few remaining evangelists, but this is essentially what led us to this point.

> they just don't try hard enough

The answer was in my post. Nix isn't for everyone, and that's OK.

For reference, I use Nix to manage three different machines, always via home-manager and nix-darwin (I left NixOS awhile ago and haven't looked back). I don't think it's "inevitable" that you'll hit the difficulty wall, but certainly likely.

As an example, I was recently playing with Pyinfra which is like a pure Python version of Ansible. It turns out that one of the dependencies uses an archaic version of setuptools and the package owner had inserted some _very_ hacky code that ended up breaking on two of my systems. Now I'm relatively experienced with Nix, so it took me a few hours to track down, but it would have been days if not impossible for a beginner.

Nowadays I package brew along with my machines and as soon as something smells funky in Nix I just manage it with brew. Much more peaceful.

The most common answer I've seen is that Python packaging just "doesn't do it right" so it's impossible to get a clean Nix experience with them. Which, to some degree is true, but it also reveals the opinionated nature of Nix and why it often falls flat.

Welcome to the honeymoon phase. Mine lasted about a year. Eventually you will have to leave the comfortable area of "those who have done it before" and engage with some long, unwieldy, mostly undecipherable stack trace.

When I asked a long-time Nix vet why he thinks people leave, he provided the most insightful answer I've seen yet: they just don't try hard enough.

I've recently developed tinnitus within the last few months, so I'm still early in my researching. However, I've found a lot of people that discount this approach and swear it only makes things worse. That's why I've been hesitant to try it.

Do you think a lot of it has to do with having the right mindset?

I've had the opposite experience. If I give it that much context it starts to hallucinate parts of the application that it very much has access to look up. This only starts happening at large context windows.

I'm constantly having to fight for my child's ADHD meds (as in, they are never available at any pharmacies around me). It's been such a nightmare ever since they were diagnosed. To know people can go around faking it for, presumably, free access to Adderall is even more frustrating.

> If I were in charge of science in a wealthy country right now I would be working overtime to brain drain US researchers.

My perception (probably skewed by overly negative media) is that the US is leading a global trend (emphasis on leading). It feels like the world is too busy preparing for war or economic gloom than trying to poach scientists.

> Who will give them a broader more holistic understanding of the world if not at a university?

I'm going to guess the kids that are inherently interested in this will research it themselves. The ones who are not, won't. I'm one of the former.

I said you were trivializing it, not that it was impossible. My original comment is it's "far outside the bounds" of what has been traditionally done by Pope's. To suggest that the answer to the question on marriage is to introduce an entirely new canon to the Bible that appears to contradict previous books of the canon (I supposed he'd have to remove those at the same time) is simply unprecedented and has never once occurred in the history of the church since the Bible was canonized.

> That talks about reproduction, but it doesn't say anything about marriage.

Later in chapter 2, God is quoted as saying:

> Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

Jesus himself then comes back and quote this exact verse in Genesis in the context of divorce being bad (Matthew 19). It's clearly referencing marriage within the context of creation.

You may not agree it's the central thrust of the text, and perhaps I overstated the position, but marriage between a man and a woman is certainly a major theme in these first two chapters. I'd be impressed if you can find Rabbinical texts that support a different theory.

> I don't hold their respect for canon quite so sacrosanct as you apparently do.

That's fine, it just makes it pointless to make a argument for what the office of Pope should and shouldn't do. It's like going into a Muslim country and telling everyone how stupid their views are because you don't respect their holy texts. Why bother?

That was my point, you're not interested in having an actual conversation. Which is fine. That's why I said I had a misunderstanding of what was going on here. But it's clear now.

> You keep ignoring the main point in that the canonized book was done so by men that selected writings that they felt represented the views they held

No, you're trying to trivialize changing the canon of the Bible. It's a pointless argument if you're not going to adopt the understanding of the Catholic tradition and then argue within it as the subject of this conversation is the Pope.

I was under the impression we were arguing why it's important for the Pope to have an accurate view of the Bible. Instead it seems like you're just wanting to say that it's all man-made anyways so might as well change it which is a completely thought process to a genuine Catholic.

> You keep ignoring the main point in that the canonized book was done so by men that selected writings that they felt represented the views they held

No, you're trying to trivialize changing the canon of the Bible. It's a pointless argument if you're not going to adopt the understanding of the Catholic tradition and then argue within it as the subject of this conversation is the Pope.

I was under the impression we were arguing why it's important for the Pope to have an accurate view of the Bible. Instead it seems like you're just wanting to say that it's all man-made anyways so might as well change it which is a completely foreign thought process to a genuine Catholic.

But I don't know why we are playing hypotheticals here. Such a dramatic change (i.e., introducing Francis 2:8-10) is far outside of the bounds that have been set for thousands of years within the Catholic tradition. The original discussion was why it might be more appropriate for a Pope to have a view that reflect's the biblical understanding of marriage rather than one that fits the modern times. If he is leading the global church through interpreting scriptures and maintaining the traditions, such a dramatic change as introducing new teachings that would seemingly contradict our prior understanding of marriage would completely step outside the bounds of his office.

This is usually taught within the first year of any seminary or religious study of Christianity. It's widely understood _why_ people are now permitted to eat pork. A good place to start is reading modern commentary on Acts 11:4-6 and basically all of Romans 14.

> It would be hard to argue that the bible actively promotes same-sex marriage, but I think you could reasonably argue that it says nothing on the subject and so leaves it for the church/community to decide.

This is where I've yet to see convincing evidence. The whole meta-story of the first few chapters of Genesis was about creation. Not just creation of the universe as we know it, but the pro-creation between a man and a woman in the sanctimony of marriage.

Whether you have an overly-religious view of Genesis or not doesn't really change the fact that the original authors were clearly "sanctifying" this act of pro-creation (the "meme" if you want to use Dawkins' terms). Other cultures and tribes obviously had their own ways of sanctifying it, but in a large, almost universal majority of cases, it was always between a man and a woman.

Changing the gender to same-sex more or less destroy's the original intention of the meme. I mean, you can do it, but I don't think you're walking away with the authentic thought that was being communicated by the authors.

I'm purely speaking from an academic sense here (the art of understanding what someone wrote a long time ago). Sure, we can choose to ignore and/or change it because it's "out of date" but that leads back to a point I made elsewhere about how it's not usually within the Catholic tradition to so blatantly alter scripture.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”

> As far as I can tell there is no consistent application of logic and understanding what parts matter and which parts do not

I would disagree. The art of hermeneutics has been around for a _long_ time and has been refined over time as we develop new understandings about the ancient cultures that wrote these documents. So, yes, things do change, but I would argue they do not _dramatically_ change. For example, the message of "the gospel" has been the same since the founding apostles. But our understanding of something like Genesis 1 has changed dramatically over the years as our understanding of the sciences, history, etc. increase.