0x3f

The pay levels seem more of an inherent problem than the political winds.

You do if you don't want your legal name in there, as I said.

If you sign an app your legal name gets embedded into the .app bundle. You can use e.g. `codesign` in the terminal to read it back, or if you publish to the App Store it will be in the UI, along with the others.

I haven't done it in a while, so didn't want to give out possibly wrong directions, but:

> I don't know how obvious it is these days, but the default path through D&B's website is the terrible one. They will try to extract money from you and harass you forever. You had to find Apple's own embedded form for it by using their search and going through some flow.

I don't know how obvious it is these days, but the default path through D&B's website is the terrible one. They will try to extract money from you and harass you forever. You had to find Apple's own embedded form for it by using their search and going through some flow.

Well, depends what the author's plans are for the future. Maybe it's not always going to be free as in beer, either.

Yes, everything should just be agnostic, as long as the incentives work out it's all fine. Like if we had worked out micropayments for the web (not saying that's a good idea per se), then who cares if you're a bot or a human when you're paying a toll either way? Flipping it to be a cost rather than payment is functionally equivalent.

If you don't want your name, address, phone number on public display you need to either set up a company or set up some forwarding. If you set up a company, you'll need to get a DUNS number. If you haven't done it before and don't know about the secret shortcut way to do that, it is very annoying to get one.

Anyway, I don't see a problem with getting it out the door. People can just choose not to install it if they don't like it. I mean that's the whole idea of being early anyway, isn't it? Don't like a crappy bodged together UI? Don't like a lack of support? Don't like an unsigned app? You can wait until it has those things according to your preferences. In the meantime, the creator gets real users and feedback ASAP.

Well it's the same answer isn't it... use Cloudflare. And hope OpenAI doesn't have a backroom scraping deal with them, which they might.

You can never prevent things like this, but you can make it expensive enough to effectively solve the problem for almost all use cases.

You can just decay your trust level based on the `iat` value. That way people will need to keep buying me coffee. I can optionally chide them for giving out their token.

If you're engaging with the idea seriously, I suppose we'd need to build a reputation or trust network or something.

Although if you're talking about replay attacks specifically, there are other crypto based solutions for that.

Four years is plenty of time to start launching. Also, MAD incentivizes disclosure. What would be the point of having secret nukes? Openly having them is the only way to stop the US using its nukes to stop your nuke program, in this scenario.

It's just Cloudflare. Bypassing it is a whole industry.

Meet me in a cafe and I will sign a JWT saying you're not a bot. You can submit this to whoever will accept it.

Depends on the context. We certainly knew nobody else had nukes.

Well if they're only an upstart, they don't have the ability to destroy you _yet_. You 'nuke' them in the hope they won't get that ability. You're aiming to stop MAD from being a thing.

In those terms, the US should have been nuking and dominating everyone, and the idea was floated after WW2, but I believe they were precluded by practical limitations.

If they had developed the tech outside of wartime, and built up a stockpile, maybe that is indeed what would have happened and we'd have a one-world government already.

Competition kills margins (profits, security, QoL), so the budget for eradication should be quite high, but generally speaking the idea is to destroy even fledgling upstarts, back when the cost is low.

I'm not sure you've quite understood the conversation.

> Banks and fintech have dug their own grave

Most of the annoying stuff with banks is just a response to government regulation.

It would probably do a lot of good if we taught kids the efficient-market hypothesis in high school, or something.

You don't mention any timeframes here relating to when the bulk of payments happened. It's quite reasonable for Stripe to hold what they see as high-risk funds in _anticipation_ of more disputes coming in.

If context is irrelevant then every country in Europe already separates families, and thus how can this be a complaint?

China's been behind too, but at least they're trying something.

It's quite odd how Europeans will see and describe themselves only in terms of being a US vassal.

> Not yet because they’re not operating in Europe yet.

They're definitely operating in Europe. They literally have 15 offices scattered around.

Perhaps, but one would think those aren't the prime issues meriting first mention. I went in hoping for details of what Palantir is doing wrong _in Europe_, but all I got was some rallying the base cliches.

> A powerful company enables genocide in Gaza, helps ICE separate families, and fuels Trump’s war with Iran.

Ah yes, European issues

Ponzi schemes have multiple participants and concealment. This is literally nothing like a Ponzi scheme apart from the fact that money moves from one concern to another. And even that's only on an accounting basis; it's all going to the one entity.

"US adheres to the terms of its contract with Switzerland" wasn't as exciting a title, I suppose.

> What prevents the vendor from jacking up prices or general enshittification at the stage?

Well what I'm proposing building would be source-available and licensed such that the gov can run it themselves if it ever gets too expensive. The sub-gov entities should really band together for the negotiation though, then they can ask for whatever they want: non-profit vendors, liberal licensing, price agreements. A collective of government buyers form basically a monopsony larger than any individual vendor could ever be.