JanisErdmanis

Can you recommend a book that expands on this classification?

An intuitive explanation is that of proving you can find Waldo in a picture without revealing his exact location. Digital wallets can be interpreted as fancy signature schemes that operate on third-party issued commitments C instead of public keys that directly link users to their identities.

A simple signature scheme is based on proof of knowledge PoK{x : pk = g^x}, which is transformed into a noninteractive variant via the Fiat-Shamir transformation, where the message is appended to the hash. Range proofs work similarly, with the simplest form being for a single bit: PoK{(b,r) : C = g^b * h^r & b(b−1)=0}. This proves that commitment C contains a bit b in {0,1} without revealing which value it is.

Arbitrary ranges can then be constructed using the homomorphic properties of commitments. For an n-bit range, this requires n individual bit proofs. Bulletproofs optimize this to O(log n) proof size, enabling practical applications.

The commitment C can be issued by a trusted third party that signs it, and the user can then prove certain properties to a service provider, such as age ranges or location zones (constructed from latitude and longitude bounds).

A key challenge is that reusing the same commitment C creates a tracking identifier, potentially compromising user privacy.

A scam is a strong word, giving the impression that there are malicious interests in selling it without working towards making returns to the investors. But a dead horse, for sure, it now looks like.

The next big challenge will be mounting the controlling hardware, currently connected via coaxial cables, onto the chip while preventing the introduction of new sources of interference so that error correction can run. That will take a miracle.

Of course, an alternative is a million coaxial cables connected to a chip cooled close to mK temperatures.

This looks great. The diff is quite inefficient for patching with the C preprocessor branches.

Since it patches the code, looking at its tree structure, is the diff human readable, and can it be edited directly? This is a major contributor to why I opt for sed for patching.

The productivity gains in activities will be countered by the same gains in counter activities. Everything is going to become more sophisticated, but bullshit will remain.

The rising wealth inequality is a blunt answer. Similarly saying that we are increasing productivity in activities that protect interest of the rich.

It seems that significant amount of productivity gains are lost because of activities that profit from deception and counter activities that accounts for them.

The birth rates have been low for a decade. I wonder if the change is triggered by US stock market downturn where majority of EU pensions are invested and expectation of a doom.

> Where is the productivity gains going?

I wonder what a good answer would be here. Intuitively we are increasing productivity in activities that does not increase social welfare. Take corporate lawyering, marketing as an example.

The US could print itself out of debt, but with an unbalanced budget and economy, that may be a disaster if it needs to finance new budget deficits. The result seems similar to the default.

Isn't the stock market detached from the dividends that the corresponding stock provides in comparison to the obligation market? People are holding stocks, hoping they are going to be the first ones to leave when the boat sinks.

sudo arch-chroot .

This is now my default tool setting up raspberry like computers.

When the wealth redistribution were done in the past there happened to be a strong movements that backed the change. I don’t see prospects of that happening in the foreseeable future given the new technologies of surveillance and deception.

Income inequality does not have a chance of standing as relevant issue in corporate media. Furthermore social media has become a significant suppressor by shaming (perhaps not the right word) people of their circumstances. As a result the perceived public opinion is far from actual opinion of the people on the relevant issues that Bernie Sanders often speaks about.

Whereas some did vote for the Trump in spite to make others suffer as they already do.

The error is assuming that Americans are homogenous. Wealthy ones benefited tremendously by reducing their production costs while the less fortunate were put into international labour productivity competition.

The Windows MSIX also does sandboxing.

Endurance sports and fasting are also a viable alternatives to a strict keto diet which are cheaper to do.

I aggree that money or the ability to attain it is what modern society considers a success. However, the categories seem to be a reflection of the universal nature of the money that can buy any influence/right.

If we had a hyptothetical coloured currency where one kind could only be spent buying property, other necessities, some luxuries like travels. As long as the currencies could be enforced to not be interchangable the "dominance" becomes realative with respect to influence points one has collected.

I may have a look on William Storr later on. The separation of social currency does however seem rather primitive one.

The core issue seems that the social status is tightly coupled with currency and it can be optimized in destructive ways. Perhaps we need currency with multiple colours that could be earned in different ways and could be allowed to be spent to its sphere of influence as long as it could be enforced to not be interchanged. That way one could have higher social status in one sphere of influence and lower in another one.

The third party vouches commitments with their year of birth for all individuals. The secret opening can be distributed to citizens with their identity card. Also multiple properties can be signed at the same time like location coordinates that can be used for other purposes and hence not making vouching exclusive to age verification.

It does sounds like that the author is not aware of existence of zero knowledge range proofs for identity based authetification (anonymous credentials). In essence they work as follows: a third party vouches a commitment for your birth year into a commitment with a signature. This then can be used for to be shown to a service provider along with a range proof to ensure that the age limit gets respected. That way service provider does not learn your year while can ensure that all members respect some required age limit.

If only gnome shell could be used on Mac OS, I would jump at heartbeat. I really can’t understand what apple developers had in mind when bringing window in focus which is present in the current screen it switches to a different workplace. Is it a bug or is it intentional is hard to tell with macOS.

> More than 2/3rds of my graduating physics class went straight into banking

This does not seem to be a specific phenomenon. Only a few of my former PhD condensed matter physics colleagues did not end up in finance.

> The release burden is, well, frankly, daunting for a small project.

With its large user base, I would have expected Java to have figured out all the details and offered users a single command-line tool that automatically builds the project into installers. I had adventures with relatable pain points when figuring out how to distribute Julia's GUI applications.

Another upcoming difficulty is transitioning to distributing applications that run in the sandbox. Windows has MSIX, Linux has Snap and Flatpack, and macOS has DMGs signed with entitlements. Each has its way of configuring and how it is expected to work, and debugging sandboxing issues is no fun.

I made an application bundler specifically for Julia's MSIX, Snap, and DMG applications, which allows the use of the underlying configuration files when configuring the sandbox via a simple recipe system. Unlikely one would change languages, but perhaps some inspiration can be taken from my project:

https://github.com/PeaceFounder/AppBundler.jl

Have also a look on Garmin 7s

Multithreading seems to work just fine with OpenBlas. It is also sometimes possible to wrap the underlying state machines from C/C++ code and then making it multithreaded in the Julia side.

Can Azure sign MSIX application bundles with that subscription price?

> provably dangerous things

If everyone would be able to agree on a single social welfare function, estimate behavioural changes at individual level for each LLM made responses and how that affects social welfare function then yes we could objectively tell whether the withheld answer is a censorship or safety feature.

It can still be made possible for the voters to rank the candidates within the list. This is true in Latvia where we do add +/- for each candidate in the list that eventually determines their rank. The elected candidates sometimes do change their parties when elected or become independent if they no longer want to follow the party line.

High level packages generally have much more users hence their inherent complexity is somewhat looked after by their users. Also curl has only a small user API, but once you consider implicit certificate store that is passed with every request and it’s countless variations it is in a sense untestable.

On the other hand libraries for hashes, encryptions, cryptographic groups, pseudorandom number generators are much more testable on their own. One can take specs and other engineered tests and check that inputs corespond to outputs. The rest is solved via memory safe languages and common sense of not having tests commented out or made special cases for them.

> How do you select a library in an area you are not familiar with?

By either having popularity or by being able to read the code and seeing that there are clear expectations communicated to the user via API or documentation. I wouldn’t consider security much when chosing user facing libraries much, but for network facing libraries popularity would be essential to me.

> All of them would be fixed if people just kept packages bigger, so that every one has actual CI, release team, and so on.

A bunch of small libraries can still be maintained by a large organization. It does not make difference if the are installed seperatelly. However modularity does add the benefit of being able to break into complexity to contributue and also gives more transparency for new users who can see what parts of the library are actually widely tested in the production and which are not and need more care.

Regarding xz, the lesson here is that one should not use programming languages where it’s limitations are deferred to preprocessors and complex build systems that only few can read. Similarly lesson from Log4j is that readability and language base features like string interpolation is much more preferable to having simply popularity.