blobster

This sounds very reasonable. Some of the replies in this thread are misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say the government should run the APIs etc, just that we already have identity in the real world and it generally works, so we can use that (but maybe not necessarily only that, there could be other options too). I should be able to use my Gov ID to get a Layer 0 verification from some provider, which then integrates with higher level providers, etc.

And again, it would be opt in, just like verifying with Facebook / Twitter etc is opt in. And for people who are concerned about government surveillance, they can already do that if you verify your social media account via your credit card, that's kind of the point there, that the credit card ties a social media account to a real world person.

We already do identity verification in the real world, it's called government issued IDs.

There should be opt-in OS-level identity verification based on zero knowledge proofs and tied to your government-issued digital ID. This also solves issues like preventing minors from accessing adult sites, etc.

I should not have to verify with 1000 third parties and hand over my personal data and then hope it's handled properly and doesn't get leaked. We have zero knowledge proofs and we can get OS makers to make this seamless for us.

Yes. There's a separate queue for sites that need js rendering and it eats much more into your crawl budget. Best way to avoid it imo is to use something like Rendertron, which is made and recommended by Google.

Good point. There is a cottage industry of scams running fake Windows virus alerts.

There are several such cases discussed in the Cloudflare forums. It usually turns out that the webmaster was serving very large amounts of media, which no one should expect to be free.

Their "password manager" on Mac is called Keychain Access. The UX is very bad, the interface is old and clunky and it doesn't sync with iOS (if for example you create a secure note there's no way to access it on iOS) - not to mention that most people don't even know it exists, it's kind of a hidden feature. Meanwhile, on iOS the password manager is hidden in the settings and again it has pretty bad UI/UX. I understand that they want to hide the complexity away from the end user and make these kinds of features "just work", but in practice they feel pretty half-baked.

This is why we need good OS-level password managers. Phones and now computers have dedicated security chips which are infinitely more secure than any cloud solution. Such an easy market to grab that it boggles me why Apple and Google aren't aggressively going for it.

Also, people can be both smart and stupid at different times and sometimes even at the same time. It's not a binary thing.

There seem to be at least two big issues with the upcoming merge:

1 - Stablecoin issuers like USDC can de facto determine which chain succeeds in case of a fork (PoW vs PoS)

2 - 70% of validators are US-based, and as custodians, they will have to comply with OFAC.

More info in this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/milessuter/status/1560070819518234624

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-m...

Interesting, but this does not seem to match empirical evidence by the likes of Ahrefs, which suggests that links are by far the most important ranking factor.

The value for money that Hetzner offer is just mind boggling.

Most of the examples of innocents being convicted are from before the invention of DNA forensics. The problem is the criminal justice system which too easily gives the death penalty. We could easily reduce the probability of conviction innocents from 4% to one in a trillion by enforcing a set of requirements:

- Must have DNA evidence - Must have audio and video evidence - Must have fingerprints - Must have at least 2 witnesses

There are plenty of cases that satisfy these conditions (terrorist attacks being one of them).

Exactly. Wouldn't be surprised if this became a common type of scam on Uniswap.

Would you be willing to bet on it? I'd love some easy money.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, you will never pass that point. A well-optimized dedicated server with 90 fast cores, 128GB ram and 4TB SSD goes for $120/mo at Hetzner. That can easily handle 1 billion non-cached monthly page views if you write decent code. More if you cache. How many sites get that much traffic? A few dozen. If you're dedicating this much effort in preparing for 1-in-a-million eventualities, you will never ship anything.

You're predicting >12% yearly inflation? That seems like a pretty bold prediction. I'm curious if you have any sources that would back your prediction.

You might want to look into ethology, which studies innate behavior like the one you referenced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology

Working on https://subbed.org, a subreddit recommendation engine that shows related subreddits based on a variety of factors.

Thanks!

https://redditbests.com - A site that aggregates reddit reviews and displays the most popular products from a variety of categories using sentiment analysis

Thank you for your amazing work. Redis has been by far the most dependable component of my tech stack and it's opened up a whole new way of thinking about data.

Best of luck in your future endeavors!

This would seem to just favor new posts with no votes over anything else.

I love it because it's the only Mac app that allows you to connect to a remote Mysql server via ssh and Unix socket at the same time.

I'm working on Slide to Subscribe, an embeddable signup form and universal subscribe link.

https://slidetosubscribe.com https://subscribe.to

This is a great translation, thank you!

I was referring to Arthur Prior's solution to the paradox.

As for dialetheism being a better model of natural language, I'm familiar with the claim but I think its main argument fails to grasp that contradictions in natural language do not happen "in the same sense and at the same time". For instance, the sentence "This sentence is false" is true and false in natural language, but in succession and not at the same time. Moreover, dialetheism does not seem to be able to explain hierarchies and cause-effect relationships, which are key constructs of language.

I think that when it comes to logical systems such as mathematical theories, the point is not necessarily to come up with a theory that is true (that would ultimately be impossible due to Agrippa's trilemma), but to have a theory that has predictive power and is self-consistent, and this is what ZF is. Self-consistency seems to be the minimum requirement for any theory, lest it falls into triviality.

The little I know about paraconsistent logic is that it suspends consistency in a few select cases. But generally, consistency still holds, otherwise, as you said, the system would become trivial. I guess my question was: would paraconsistent logic claim to be true? Or, at least, identical to itself? If yes, then if would itself be subject to consistency and identity. And if it chooses to temporarily suspend those, then in that time it can no longer claim to be true. But if in general it complies with consistency (lest it becomes trivial), then it must reject the subsets that are not true, otherwise it could no longer be self-consistent.

I guess my point (and I could be wrong) is that paraconsistent logic is entirely non-consistent, unless it chooses to redefine what consistency means, in which case, we're back to triviality.

Thanks for the book suggestion, I'll definitely read it and hopefully find some answers.

My questions still remain unanswered. Regarding the examples you raised: the liar paradox can be solved without breaking explosion by observing that all assertions carry the implicit ending "and this sentence is true". The liar sentence then becomes "This sentence is false and this sentence is true", which is simply false. As for Russell's paradox, as far as I know this has been solved in ZF theory, although admittedly with a few extra axioms needed. Not sure about Gödel's sentences.

It just doesn't seem worth it to me to suspend the fundamentals of thinking just to solve some paradoxes that can anyway be solved within our current model of logic.

You can model behavior, which is very useful for economics.

Fair point, but how do you determine when to stop following the consequences of the contradictions? Furthermore, from the point at which you stop, you are then re-enforcing the principle of non-contradiction, so why not enforce it from the start and call it a day? To me, dialetheism has always seemed very arbitrary, but maybe that's exactly the point of it. If that's true, then it's just another flavor of extreme relativism where anything can be true or false and any reasoning is meaningless.

On top of that, it seems to me that even in denying the principle of explosion, one must follow it if they want to be consistent in the denial. Otherwise the denial itself won't hold, because if you allow contradictions, by definition you must also allow their opposite, which is the principle of non-contradiction. And as far as I'm aware there is no proof in logic that allows for an exception to ECQ. Because once you allow any contradiction, you implicitly allow anything, which makes thought impossible.