robxorb

Just tried it. I liked how easy it was to set up colours/fonts etc, using the config file.

But I hit a snag. On macOS, it's standard that in any text window, to select everything for copying, you hit Command-a.

But Command-a in wezterm just printed an "a" character. What?

I spent a while looking in the docs and issues, but couldn't figure out how to Select All.

I don't think I should have to justify it, but in case someone's wondering - it's useful if you want to search or parse an entire Terminal session using some other process (eg, grep), or edit it, or just persist it for example.

Regardless of why, "Select All" is such a standard function it felt quite strange it wasn't suported out of the box.

That a mostly-finished, working project of this complexity ends in fiasco can't be the fault of the contractors. What failed is communications - and apparently only on one side. Both Entropic and Dmitry were shocked by this outcome; not communicated with.

Where is the repo? Stuck in the landing page loop here and no github link I could find.

IMO the thing that may matter most here is the PR effect on Defcon. It's the badge - every attendee takes this thing home and engages with it. It's a talking point, memento and representation of the spirit of the conference.

That's an unmitigated PR disaster for Defcon. It doesn't matter to this who was right or wrong or what laws were broken, even if somehow all legally ended up in Defcon's favour, the damage to the brand is huge, enduring and set aside from those issues.

To address this, whoever at Defcon ultimately actioned this series of events should be held to account, for this PR aspect, and the matter immediately and publicly handed to someone with an appropriate understanding of Defcon's culture & reputation.

Well, when I got up this morning I didn't think I'd be doing this today:

please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

Why is the title of the HN post changed to read "Twitter", when the linked article title states correctly "X", and is otherwise identical?

I don't call them a science denier - which is about the most self-contradictory term anyone could come up with. Science is the process of questioning and doubting prior science. You're not "denying science" to question science.

I call them "flat-earthers", as that's something that is usefully descriptive of their views and that they themselves seem happy to be called.

That is, it's a name that doesn't also necessarily insult them, which as I see it serves no useful purpose for anyone and simply causes antagonism and less of an ability to successfully communicate.

Which, by the way, is the only working solution to disagreement.

Why don't we call people who believe the earth is flat (with their own science that they think backs it up) "round-earth deniers"?

Do you think that would help or hinder the situation if we did?

"Classic shaming" always having been an effective method of...?

It may make you feel better, but it doesn't work. It's right there at the beginning of cycles of dysfunction, because it is that: dysfunctional.

It's a type of mainstream-media induced psychosis commonly referred to as "rocket-man bad" (related to the similar "orange-man bad").

Essentially, almost entirely one-sided coverage of two highly-influential people of contemporary times have warped some people's opinions of them into an irrational and often incoherent rage, leading to boycotts/"cancelling", etc.

In both cases, these were people who were widely-admired - in Musk's case among the same demographic now hates him - when the MSM supported them prior, which then 180°'d when the MSM machine turned against them, for whatever reason.

It's an interesting phenomenon to observe, but is also rather sad as it divides people quite nastily. My response here will likely be downvoted, flagged and receive endless repeats of the media misrepresentstions against both characters.

Criticism will likely be almost entirely devoid of balance, and especially absent of rational acknowledgement that eg, in the orange mans case, hundreds of millions of people love him enough to believe he will lead their country to prosperity.

Unfortunately, such division leads only to a bleak future for all involved, which is why I try here - humbly - to bring some light, and rationality to it, no doubt failing due to the nature of the problem and its effect on people.

X seems like a pretty much the same platform before and since Musk, only since Musk there is noticably-less "curation", and so discussion is more organic, so, some may find it more raw. I like it better, but it's not particularly different really.

The first thing I'd think was someone without any skill was randomly clicking around some early bitmap paint software.

Well I'll be proudly labelled a "_____ denier" denier.

This pejorative term does nothing for anyone making any argument. It weakens your position because you're attempting to rely on emotions and psychology to make your case instead of... well, making your case!

It predictably has the reverse effect of your intention. Those who disbelieve you strengthen in their resolve because now not only do they disagree with you on a factual basis, but they also believe themselves to have been unfairly characterised in a pejorative way for their position. Dumb move, you had one obstacle, now you're made yourself have two.

If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?

To me it's primitive and ineffective behaviour, and I lose respect for those who resort to it.

And yet we're both conversing seamlessly, here ... somehow.

Seems an interesting engineering project, but like a terrible product.

Couldn't you say that about half the stuff posted here?

To me that's the "product" - an interesting engineering project targeted at people like us; a starting point for learning that can be taken further and those advancements potentially fed back into it, like all good open source projects.

As that kind of product, similar to a large chunk everything else built around RPi's and arduino's posted here (and... celebrated), it looks great to me and I don't get the hate. I was really excited to see it.

Why would such a person want to have a robot which does away with that?

The same reason they want the many, often entirely pointless automations posted here daily, only this is not just fun, but also useful?

If this actually produces enough consumable food reliably (idk if it does, and be nice to see criticism along that angle), maybe also the cost could be justified?

IIRC it's ~$3K for the base model, seems it could pay for itself in a year or so if it could supply a years worth of fresh veges to a couple of people, depending on the local cost (which can vary a lot).

The main criticism against this seems to be it doesn't kill weeds. But it's an open system, with standardised, autonomously selectable attachments. Can someone come up with an attachment or two for it that could control weeds?

I notice substantially lower documentation requirements for a crypto exchange vs a bank.

I notice the reverse though it does vary by jurisdiction.

I described FTX as an "obvious scam", citing it as an example of the SEC greenlighting a bad actor - so your speechlessness is the result of comprehension issues on your part.

It's not a "conspiracy theory" to hold a different opinion to you regarding financial policy direction.

What I regard as "weak" is the use of such derogatory labels, rather than proper discussion.

Good day!

I'm not suggesting next year, or even next decade. But it will happen. You think profit-driven, hierarchical, centralised, closed and proprietary non-interoperable systems are our future? Novel idea! Best of luck with it.

You could level similarly-contrived criticisms against humans where machines could do better too. Of course there will be edge-cases either way - the question is the overall balance, which tips further towards machines each day.

In the future, vehicles could have their FSD augmented by direct comms with each other, in a trustless way. If the entire traffic network ended up interconnected, it'd behave as a single system, approaching 100% self-awareness.

Obviously, no ordinary human drivers could get anywhere near that level of situational awareness, nor ability to coordinate in parallel. All they have is a small cone of vision/hearing, a bit of sensor augmentation, and little else.

Makes sense to me.

If you're avoiding skin contact, then you might not have time to wipe the peanut butter mess off your hands as you rush to rescue your kid who's got into trouble.

It's true that all financial institutions are subject to KYC and AML laws. However, if you've ever used a crypto exchange versus a bank, or even just a prepaid debit card, you'll immediately see a massive difference in the application of those laws in terms of what you have to supply and how often.

It's not the crypto exchanges pushing for that - they actively work against it as it's a major expense as well as costing them customers.

Aside from exchanges, consider: cash itself is not targeted by these laws, which is crypto's closest existing analog. Do you need to submit KYC and AML documents to pull cash from your physical wallet and pay someone? Yet the push is for that level of involvement in your crypto wallets.

Finally, the SEC's actions for example are very clear: an obvious scammer like FTX gets a tick of approval and ends up reaming customers for billions. Whereas long-stable contributors such as LBRY or Ripple, get bogged down with heavy-handed enforcement. There are more examples.

HSBC was legally found to be actively engaged in facilitating criminal gangs, money-laundering etc. They paid a fine. You think a crypto exchange found to be doing those things would pay a fine? No, the executives would be jailed.

There's a big difference in application, across the board.

If free to evolve unrestrained, crypto would likely eventuate in a future where governments are less relevant, less powerful, and smaller.

A government structure concerned more with self-preservation, will - accurately - perceive crypto as a threat to its antithetic hegemony, through a diminished ability to, for example:

- conduct itself without transparency. In a functionally-crypto world, government transactions would be immediately and openly public and auditable by anyone, and likely so automated. Currently, months long latency and bureaucratic obfuscation work against accountability.

- unfairly freeze assets for the purposes of self-preservation or power. In many cases there could well be no ability to freeze assets at all. (Private keys can be stored in minds, and this can be plausibly denied.)

- control the economy, and so ultimately, manipulate every aspect of a populations direction. A sufficiently smart-contract operated world could decentralise and democratise economic "policy" so much it may no longer fit inside that definition, as it may potentially become less of an affectation and more of an effect.

A proposed downside of all this is it simply may not work. I don't buy that. I think the main problems we have as a species are in how we allow ourselves to be exploitable. Building in greater sovereignty is the solution, not a problem.

This is a very important issue you raise.

In terms of the blockchains themselves, they all have a kind of built-in bounty, in that if on-chain funds have inherent risk of being lost or taken due to faults in the system, this will have happened - as the biggest / most popular systems are valued in the multi-billions. Ie, a huge bounty if an exploit exists.

To my knowledge, this has not occurred to date with any of the major systems themselves.

It's important not to mistake the above with a different issue of trusting applications development built on blockchain projects.

Almost all blockchains have kind of two layers of functionality.

The base layer allows self-custody and transfer.

Above that, people can build other things using smart contract languages, or hardware solutions, or software that interacts with the chain. Those can have huge bugs or be outright scams.

It's a bit like HTTPS could be provably secure, but that doesn't mean if you visit https://dodgy-website.com-dodgy.tk you're protected against it doing something dodgy.

The different is while HTTPS is limited in its user-facing application, the base layer of say Bitcoin or Ethereum isn't so much.

People can securely store and transact any amount with anyone worldwide, sometimes in seconds, with complete finality and determinism, without needing to trust anyone in between.

In almost all cases, you also have access to the code, and can build it yourself. But as mentioned, the built-in bounty acts as your best security.

Eg, if there was a hole in the base layer of Bitcoin right now, there's hundreds of billions up for grabs.

It's a problem because AML/KYC laws are created and enforced by governments, who sometimes are also the criminals such laws are supposedly created to protect us all from. Under a corrupt regime, crypto is a potential corrective force.

If governments are acting fairly, some of crypto's use-cases will simply not be adopted en masse. If they're not acting fairly, it will all have huge take up. In that sense it's like a check and balance on democratic values.

This has demonstrably been the case in many countries.

Governments that come down extremely heavy-handed against it, are almost certainly themselves either corrupt in the worst case, or against common democratic principles of freedom and personal sovereignty in the best case.

The common BS trotted out is that crypto os used for financing terrorism. The reality is, cash is used for financing terrorism, banks are used for financing terrorism, and governments are used for financing terrorism.

Why target only crypto for this? Because it's a ruse. It's being targeted for other reasons.

A government truly "for the people, and by the people", would welcome the people being more easily able to transfer value between each other and hold it closer to them without a middle-man they need to trust.

I don't get what you're saying.

The reality is, that because of KYC/AML laws it's difficult for ordinary people to replace cash with crypto, which - if it were easy - would be a superior form of money and transacting as any amount from tenths of a cent to billions, moves frictionlessly.

You don't have to trust those institutions. You can custody your own crypto without them, pay for services, etc. What's holding the safety level back ironically is the overbearing regulations making individual financial sovereignty a pain.

"I'm just shocked they don't want more coverage of these things and not less."

I'm having real trouble parsing this, can anyone break down the double-negative for me? Or does it simply not make sense?

IMO, it's just counter to what Apple aspires MacOS to be.

Every OS wants to be attractive to developers. Apple has a long history of underdelivering this core proposition. To me it's an odd situation to reason about - look at Apple's dev conferences and then look at what it's like on the ground in dev's reality.

As a total newcomer expecting to have the use of certificates explained, that section lost me at this point:

However, the hacker somehow obtains a certificate issued to super-bank.com

If the article is to explain the use, it might be good to explain first what they are. As it immediately circularly referenced certificates as if they're a concept the reader already understands, I couldn't learn anything from it.

The referenced article states the alarmist view presented in An Inconvenient Truth is scientifically valid.

The claim made by Al Gore, well over a decade ago, was that all arctic ice would be gone within five years. If you can't reason about how that much could claim to happen in five years and now fifteen's elapsed, I'm not sure what to say.

Sorry, I must've been mistaken, it does indeed turn out the deeply alarming future dangers of global... um, climate change... have never been reputably published anywhere.

Eg: 10.1007/s10708-008-9127-y