aeternum

>More regulation won't help here, because the regulation-maker is itself the hostile party.

It's easy to paint the big gov as bad, but this is a case where unfortunately the populace seems to be in agreement with the big bad gov. While most US citizens support encryption, 76% or so, the vast majority 63% also favor government "backdoor" access for national security reasons.

I guess either we believe in democracy or we don't. It could be said that if Veracrypt isn't/can't be backdoor'd, perhaps the gov is simply implementing the will of the people :( via Microsoft.

What's the improved security argument for terminating VeraCrypt's account though? SB does have clear benefits but what is unclear is the motivation for the account termination.

What's the likelihood that this account ban provides zero security benefit to users and was instead a requirement from the gov because Veracrypt was too hard to crack/bypass.

Not necessarily, we could reach a point where theoretically it is possible to crack elliptic curve but still prohibitively expensive except for nation states. At that point or near that point, miners would likely agree to engage the throttle.

Presumably the vast majority who had their key would move the coins before the throttling takes effect so in the event of a 'slow takeoff' quantum scenario where quantum computing is expensive or nation states don't want to divulge the capability there could be no demand for the 1btc slot. If a lucky individual forgot about their coins (likely an early 50btc block), it only takes them ~8hrs to transfer at the normal txn fee.

Only those with access to legacy coins can compete for that slot.

The main advantage is it delays the transfer to the mining reward to the last possible moment, IE the trigger for the transfer to the mining reward likely only happens if there is sufficient contention for that 1btc slot because legacy wallets are getting cracked.

It didn't even make sense because they didn't explain what was profoundly altered.

Community control typically doesn't work to constrain great men, a group has more weak points than an individual (look for example how easily Sam dismantled the OpenAI board decision by applying the right pressure).

The greatest and often only check on power has always been competition or opposition by other great men.

I looked into it and the currently leading proposal: Hourglass v2 is pretty clever. Once 'Hourglass' is enabled, the rate at which legacy (P2PK) coins can be spent is (proposed to be) capped at 1btc / block. Thus they will not be burned, but the rate at which they can be stolen/compromised will be limited such that the economic impact is at most about 1/3 the block reward.

This gives holders of those old addresses the maximum amount of time to move their coins to more modern addresses and still the ability to move some coins after the deadline. If legacy keys are compromised in bulk, IE access to sufficiently powerful quantum computing is rapid and widespread, then there will be high competition via the existing txn fee bidding process for that 1btc/block slot. Thus most of the value of the will be captured by the txn fee and go to the miners, effectively boosting the mining reward by ~1/3.

Bitcoin has had significant protocol upgrades before, including the highly divisive segwit. IMO immutability is a non-issue, there's plenty of evidence that Satoshi generally agreed that consensus via the longest chain (most PoW) wins.

Thus, upgrading the protocol/code to change the encryption to something quantum-resistant should be no more controversial a change than segwit. The community has already answered the "is it still Bitcoin". Yes it is, protocol and code is free to change given longest-chain consensus.

The problem will be what to do with legacy addresses. Never before have issued coins been forcibly deleted by a BIP. It could turn out that legacy addresses (including Satoshi's) that fail to have their coins moved after a deadline must be considered compromised and burned/destroyed. That has no precedent with bitcoin, although it does with ETH.

Anyone know if there's a way out that doesn't require this? Obviously there's no way to ensure all legacy address coins are moved by the deadline.

The most fitting method would be to be to train an LLM on the Claude Code source-code (among other data).

Then use Anthropic's own argument that LLM output is original work and thus not subject to copyright.

At current launch numbers it may not be worth 1.5+ trillion but valuations aren't about current, they're about discounted future cash flows.

It seems logical that there could/will be far more demand for launch if the price were lower. Prices are quite extreme currently, a standard 3U cubesat (loaf of bread size) is $300k and that's just for orbit.

There could be lots of startups that want to try robotic space mining but launch costs just make that mostly impossible currently so there are only a select few. It's like valuing the Dutch East India company based on the trade volumes in 1603. Of course people are not going to be buying much pepper or nutmeg if it costs them weeks of labor, but build lots of reusable ships, and with each voyage, more people can afford your pepper and nutmeg until it's a common household item.

There are enough Elon haters that you can rest assured there will be an inverse ETF so that you can easily hedge away your index exposure if you really want to.

>the burden of proof is on the people saying it's not happening again

This specifically I take issue with. You had a bug in your software before so now the burden is on you to formally prove your software is bug-free.

The burden of proof should remain on the naysayers. Take a plasma torch to the heatshield pock marks and see how long it takes to burn through. Do experiments just as Feynman did with the o-rings. Let the outcome of the experiment, not office politics decide.

>Camarda is an outlier. The engineers at NASA believe it is safe. The astronauts believe it is safe. Former astronaut Danny Olivas was initially skeptical of the heat shield but came around.

How do you explain so many people believing it is safe?

The problem is risks are far too easy to brainstorm, anyone can come up with endless risks that it takes endless time to mitigate.

If I were the manager for challenger, I would have run the o-ring experiment as soon as it was brought up as a concern. Put the fuel pumps in a freezer, test if they leak. Feynman famously demonstrated it with a glass of icewater. Experiment is what separates made up risks from real risks, I would have definitely told the engineers to take a hike and would have hit launch if they couldn't provide experimental evidence of o-ring failure in cold temps. (Spoiler alert: in that case they easily could have)

It's kind of sad that we've become so risk averse. Risks should be fully disclosed but let the adventurers adventure.

Would Columbus' ship ever have been allowed to sail in the modern day? Proximity wingsuit flying and free-climbing is legal and people choose to do it even though the probability of death is extremely high. Spaceflight is significantly safer and far more beneficial to humanity, yet we block it. No one counts the lives lost due to slowing scientific progress but we should. How much further behind would we be scientifically if Darwin hadn't ventured out on the Beagle due to endless safety reviews. Would the US be what it is today if Lewis and Clark had to prove to congress that the trip was safe?

Given the opportunity, many of us would choose to die as part of a grand adventure in service to humanity vs. wither away of old age.

It actually would have been better if I kept the end. You don't write your code, a compiler does.

You simply described what you wanted in more abstract far less specific language.

Before we were at least 2 compilation/translation steps removed from machine code, now we are 3.

Every Show HN should come with a disclosure detailing exactly how much compiler was used to create it.

I mean it's not that using compilers is bad, it's just that those who use them aren't real coders.

A lot of this is just wrong. AI can now see the output.

It's interesting that highly flawed opinion pieces like this are so popular.

It's a much easier challenge when every moving vehicle in the airport environment is issued a relatively exact clearance.

The ATC clearance gives each vehicle a movement contract.

It would be great if avionics actually took those into account. Avionics should help pilots ensure their vehicles don't break the contract and should also alert immediately if other vehicles have, or their velocity vector is such that they will violate the contract. IE braking rate is insufficient to stop before the hold short line. ATC computers should ensure no conflicting clearances are issued.

None of that happens right now.

A clearance from ATC means you can land not that you must land nor that it is safe to land. PIC still has the ultimate choice. It's common practice in the US to issue landing clearances even when another plane is on the runway or there are two landing planes ahead of it also with landing clearances, if that wasn't done you would be waiting far longer at the airport.

It's obviously the right choice to give the PIC the information via avionics in a graphically concise way that highlights this potential runway contention because it is real and pilots are expected to adjust their speed to maintain the right sequence.

When it isn't possible, which does happen, IE a plane ahead is slow to clear the runway or to takeoff, pilots are expected+required to execute a go-around.

Well imagine if we designed a TCAS-like system that did work below 1,000 feet!

Planes use a system called TCAS to prevent collisions in the sky, this system is independent of ATC and works even if ATC is not paying attention or if pilots have the wrong frequency tuned. It detects impending collisions and gives both pilots clear and automated alerts plus an action IE climb + turn to execute immediately to prevent a collision.

A similar system can and should be used for runways.

As a thought experiment, imagine how many car accidents there would be if instead of traffic lights, each person had a AM radio in their car and police officers called out over the radio which cars should proceed across the intersection. That is the unfortunate state of modern? aviation.

No that is not the issue. Runway incursions have always been a problem and many deaths have occurred.

There have been many attempts to change phraseology, teach pilots and controllers to always readback runways, etc. but nothing that actually prevents the issue from occurring entirely via automation.

Much of big tech became Product leaders running amok. Somehow It shifted from users know best to "Product" knows best.

I think this all stemmed everyone wanting to be Apple except no one actually achieved it and now we have 3 different versions of the audio control panel in Windows, the start button is somehow in the middle of the screen, and windows search no longer searches your PC.

Deleting "Product" might save windows, short of that, I am doubtful.

It's a good question.

It would be violent crime trend correlation with de-escalation training. Or even with complaints of police aggression.

Even more useful would be to separate out assault + battery where the victim is random vs. non-random, IE domestic or gang.

I'm not claiming that de-escalation implies ignoring antisocial behavior or failing to confront.

I'm claiming that some antisocial behavior is only triggered by some degree of escalation.

This will be a controversial opinion but I think some escalation by police is warranted.

The reality is there are aggressive people in society that have a tendency to escalate things. If police are trained to only de-escalate, it removes a powerful check on aggressive escalation.

The second order effect is an increase in events like people being pushed onto train tracks, glass bottles being thrown if you glance the wrong direction, etc.

I think optimally you have a police force that is trained in de-escalation but also escalates things slightly more than the average citizen and thereby provides a service to society as a buffer.

The Jones Act

Yes, some directly via the LHWCA fed law and some indirect via labor union contracts with port associations that rent from the gov port authorities. Ultimately it's such a powerful union that often US presidents take part in the negotiations.

The recently negotiated (nation-wide) deal:

In the deal, the union holds on to existing contract language that protects against certain types of automation, and has won guaranteed jobs where partial automation is put in place.

Port employers will still be blocked from implementing “fully automated” port technology: the employers cannot implement equipment that is “devoid of human interaction.” And the union and the employers have to agree on implementing any new technology; if they cannot agree, the question gets sent to arbitration.

This language prevents East and Gulf Coast port employers from implementing the more extreme forms of automation seen in other parts of the world, including the Long Beach Container Terminal, in Southern California, where autonomous trucks and cranes entirely replace human operators.

Amazing, never thought it would happen.

Ridiculous to have laws that unfairly protect dead industries. Dockworkers next please so we can have automated container unloading.

It's unclear what boots on the ground can do that bombing can't.

Diplomacy generally doesn't work until neither side gains by extending the conflict.

Just make sure it works well with autocomplete. No additional fanciness or weird rearranging of fields is needed.