gorgonical

It sounds like they are making the claim that they can revoke access to data immediately, but they say you don't need to store the content on-device. I looked up "key displacement" and can't find any immediate references, though I'm not an expert.

My understanding is that if I acquire a ciphertext encrypted with key v1, I will always be able to decrypt it. Any "asynchronous" protocol will have this problem, right? I can be revoked access if I need a piece of the key from a trusted party or if that v1 of the ciphertext can be guaranteed deleted, but caching old versions of keys and files means I will always retain access to the versions of files I ever had access to.

Could someone with a bit more understanding shed some light on this?

There's a branch of economics, usually lumped in with "heterodox economics" that says that interpersonal comparisons of utility are impossible. This is called the Austrian school of economics, whose figures are von Mises and Rothbard.

Their basic unit of the market is the transaction. You know you value the coffee more than $2 and the coffee seller less than $2, and the other person values it more than $1, but until you and the other person actually make a trade you can't figure out the relationship between your preferences. That is, you are exactly right that you cannot say you prefer coffee twice as much.

Here's a video that explains this idea, called "praxeology" in these circles. He explains it in the first five minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI5fjTz1Rbw

I think that's part of this push, that Perl 6 is gonna become Raku, so that Perl 5 is just Perl again. Then I think Perl 11 is an aspirational interpreter/VM that will allow both to run, as was originally intended. I do see your point though.

I agree and in one of my replies I acknowledge that. It's okay to admire but you have to understand what you are admiring and its context. A very good recent example is that the Nazis were the first government to acknowledge that smoking is bad, and they had strong animal rights positions as well as decent policies on environmentalism.

Nobody would argue that these footnotes mean we can overlook what they did, but what they did doesn't invalidate (emphasis) the good they did. It definitely outweighs it!

If we weren't allowed to admire then what do we do? Even saintly figures have blemishes.

The first post also has parts where he explains how even by contemporary standards it was cruel. That doesn't excuse the attitude that we often hold, that we are the most morally evolved and have the right to judge.

I don't think the implied ad hominem is necessary or useful here. I meant what I said and I don't think there's any overt virtue signaling. The author was awarded a PhD in 2018 on Roman history so I think the author is well-versed and strongly opinionated, no virtue signaling there.

The sibling comment about admiration I think has an important point. We don't need a universe that's perfectly in balance, which is to say that if Sparta is romanticized I don't think it's necessary that we demonize them to balance the scales. Of course it's important to understand what they did and know the whole story, and what the author does to disillusion about 300 is good work. However, at least this first article is written in a persuasive way rather than an informative one, the author clearly wants us to be on his side about how awful the Spartans were rather than just inform us so we understand what we might be admiring. Another sibling comment said that the outrageism goes down in later articles, so maybe they're different and worth a good read.

After reading the first one, "on spartan schooling" I'm a little sad. I understand the point of casting a more clear light on the alien and brutal practices of ancient civilizations, but the distaste and condemnation that the author uses evokes British colonizers talking about their subjects, combined with a tinge of social justice history revisionism. One of the central concepts of anthropology (and I think, by extension, history) is that you don't judge other people disjoint from you in space and time with your cultural norms.

History has been awful and brutal every year since we began writing it down, and well before that, too. I think it's wrong that this means we shouldn't admire the more interesting parts of history.

I think they probably could sue him for damages in civil court, but the problem is that (as I understand it) it is not possible to compel someone to pay. You can garnish wages, seize property, etc., but if you're stealing ~$10 of belts do you think you have $400k laying around?

The second part of this is that it indemnifies the police of their actions, shifting the cost of their recklessness. You pay in taxes to give them APCs, and then you pay again when they blow things up with those APCs you bought them.

The personal assistant it says it's inspired by is called Leon: https://github.com/leon-ai/leon

I was interested in this story and did some digging. I managed to find a WSJ article detailing it from 2000, but it was behind a paywall. I found another website duplicates the article

"A Year After Merger With Ameritech, SBC Still Hasn't Met FCC Conditions" https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB971041139934224266

I didn't look much for articles about when, if, or how SBC got out of these FCC requirements.

I am actually a research scientist working on NDN (Named-data Networking). Van certainly was the founder of NDN and is often consulted to remind us about his vision for the network, but the torch really has been passed to the other PIs; most notably Lixia Zhang[1], another early-Internet pioneer. It's very exciting work, and a lot of things need re-inventing when you totally invert the networking protocol like that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lixia_Zhang

I'm guessing, but I'll guess that you live somewhere on the coast. I work in research and I make a very good salary in my city, but I only make ~65k/year. My roommate, with many more years of experience, makes 70k/year, and the only people at his company that make more are the senior architects and executives.

As is quite normal in this industry, both of us occasionally have to put in large amounts of unpaid overtime in order to make deadlines. That doesn't translate into more money or career fulfilment for us, because the city we live in has a very low ceiling for this sort of thing. Not everyone lives in LA, SFA, or NYC.

I have made extensive use of org-mode for many years, and I keep trying to get into org-brain as a way to really have a "digital brain" -- I use org-mode to implement my own horrible version of GTD, to great success. I have tried to start using org-brain many times, but it never works.

I think there's something about having to externalize everything I know that confounds me. I wish org-brain could scan my brain and spit out something I could start working on.

I agree. Even extremely safe languages like Ada, which have found most of their use in safety-critical situations like in plane avionics and medical equipment, allow the programmer to do "unchecked conversions," the equivalent of a static_cast.

It would actually be insane for const to forbid the programmer from doing any of these things. A certain amount of a language and its features is to protect your program from other programmers, to communicate your idea and vision about the code. In that way, const is amazingly useful.

This is more or less what corporativism suggests, that geography really doesn't make much sense as a grouping parameter. Corporatism suggests grouping people in a voting area by occupation, usually by way of guilds or unions or the like.

Specifics aside, I fully agree that I'm much more likely to have something in common with a software developer across the state than the school-teacher next door.