mediocregopher

A similar project here: https://www.proofofhumanity.id/

They don't solve the proof-of-humanness problem via biometrics, it's more of a web-of-trust kind of thing. Probably also broken as hell, but this is a hard problem being solved in new ways so that's expected.

Norm Macdonald writes like Earnest Hemingway.... I wonder if Earnest was a true writer or just a typist.

I deleted my FB probably 10 years ago and never looked back, but most people I know who still have it act like it's some vital part of life which can't be left behind. It's integrated into how people interact with the other people in their life so much they can't get rid of it.

It's not so much an addiction as a lifestyle. Telling most people to quit their FB is like telling folks in the US to sell their car and never use a personal vehicle again... they're whole life is structured around that fundamental fact, they can't just leave it behind.

I've had this exact dream and it's one of my favorites as well! It feels like bunny hopping in source engine games.

The README mentions Antirez's coding philosophy as being an inspiration:

> This codebase aims to follow in Antirez's tradition of writing beautiful programs, that solve extremely difficult difficult technical problems in the simplest most elegant way possible.

Is something Antirez has talked about himself anywhere? I'm interested to know more, but am not fluent enough in C to understand what makes this code elegant.

Another similar project to Tailscale, for those in the market:

https://github.com/slackhq/nebula

Crazy simple, fully open source, trivial to self-host. Maybe not as featureful as Tailscale, but imo that can be a feature unto itself.

All governments are based on some kind of belief.

(Which is not to say CCP or monarchies are good, just that that's not the pillar I'd attack them on)

For me a part of the melancholy feeling comes from the indignity of being forced to prove I'm human, and then the frustration at this stupid world we've created which requires me to do so which immediately follows the indignity.

A website with captchas is like a retail store with metal detectors; it's not somewhere I feel welcome.

I was unaware, as i have no iOS devices to test with. Thanks!

Thank you for this tip. If I use a sub-domain for the blog mailer will that dodge the issue? Or do i need to get a whole new domain for the blog mailer?

We really need to fix email, it shouldn't be this hard -_-

The article's premise seems to me to be that real money is valuable because there's more to it than its properties and its form...

> But a cash token is not mere paper, and the numbers we see in bank accounts are not mere numbers. They are accounting records of legally-enforceable promises...

That sentence strikes me as the crux. But we never find out what is being promised. The word IOU is also used a lot, but we don't find out what we are owed.

Is it access to a financial system? If so that's a flimsy argument, who's to say crypto couldn't create its own financial vortex (as the author describes it)?

> Value only requires that somebody is willing to pay for it.

And they will only be willing to pay if they want or need to do something with it. Wants and needs require some purpose, some intention, to drive them.

The Simpsons gives the viewer a break for a short time, during which they can recharge. Or maybe it gives them a viewpoint with which to understand the world that they find useful. Or maybe the viewer has decided that life's purpose is to watch everything on tv.

I'm not asking anyone to stop anything, I only gave my own viewpoint that my purpose comes from the physical world. I have no problem with others finding theirs elsewhere.

> Certainly improving physical reality remains valuable, but the non-physical world will likely grow in real as well as ephemeral value at a higher rate.

Value requires purpose, so the question is: from what is each individual's purpose derived in the virtual world, where we can leave the physical behind? And is there a purpose to our physical being that we do harm by neglecting?

To me our physical world has much purpose, and the virtual world, in whatever form it takes, is only valuable to the extent it allows me to fulfill my purpose in the physical.

It seems like a sales tax might be more frequently circumvented than an income tax. With income tax the side who stands to lose is the worker, who generally lacks the resources to bother laundering money. With a sales tax the losing side is the seller, who may be a multinational that can afford to play stupid games.

I do like the simplicity of the idea though, just that alone makes me lean in favor. It's not like the current system isn't also being gamed to hell anyway.

> Biodiversity is simply the best thing in the known universe. Nothing else holds a candle to the beauty, the wonder, the awe that the living world engenders.

If the beauty argument doesn't sway others, there's a very strong argument to be made that biodiversity is one of the biggest strengths life on earth (or anywhere else) has. To the extent someone cares about the process of life persisting onwards through time, they should care about biodiversity.

In the case of a fork in the chain the network decides the winner based on which fork ends up being longer. If blocks are being mined too quickly then forks become more likely and the state of the chain is more volatile as the current "winner" keeps flipping around.

Blocks being mined too slowly is a more obvious problem: less transaction throughput.

A key component of the hash algorithm used by blockchain is that difficulty can be adjusted, such that the algorithm ensures that the difficulty to mine the next block increases/decreases based on how long it took previous blocks to mine. In this way the network can attempt to maintain a predictable rate of blocks being mined as mining power fluctuates.

So for this to be a good computation for a blockchain to use it would have to have a way to modify difficulty in a predictable way.

Why would there being too many of something imply that there are specific members which should be removed?

If we allow the population to stop increasing we can _maybe_ find a way to live sustainably on this earth. No one existing person is "extra".

Way back in the stumbleupon days I stumbled onto the flat earth society message boards. It was clear to me that everyone involved knew it was satire; just a tongue-in-cheek dig at the way any conspiracy theory, no matter how outrageous, could be made plausible if you throw enough crazy at it.

Fast forward 10+ years and people actually believe it. Someone recently launched themselves in a homemade rocket to prove with their own eyes the flatness of the earth (and died for their efforts).

I love birdsarentreal, but part of me isn't looking forward to finding out what happens to it as more people come across it.

I don't know anything about what's going on, but I'm in full support of anyone bailing on a passion project from which the passion is gone. Godspeed to them.

Shod google not be taxed twice in this example? Once on the income made in the USA when they sold the actual thing, and once in Ireland when the Irish branch sold the thing to the USA branch? Not to mention sales tax....

I'm seeing two opposing and yet identical arguments showing themselves around this topic repeatedly:

> If you don't like Apple's walled garden, then don't use an Apple product.

> If you don't like the Epic app store, then don't use the Epic app store.

I don't have a solution here (though i know which side i fall on), but it's worth noting that neither of these seem to useful arguments to base anything on. The judge here seems to be aiming for an argument based on Apple not having any real competition they need to respond to, which is probably more fruitful.

That's pretty hand-wavy. Anyone can read the published code, but you can't read the code being run by each individual entity in the network. Any individual might change their server to not make the stored data available to those paying for the storage.

It's not _likely_, as that would negate the usefulness of the whole system if it became an issue, and therefore negate the cash flow into the system.

Ultimately what's keeping the storage providers honest, whether they're centralized or decentralized, is that their future profit stream is based on their current behavior, and they presumably care about future profits. Code and SLAs ain't nothing but words.

The diffing/merging stuff that you see when you use the git tool is really just some sugar on top of the underlying data which is being stored. If you look at what a commit actually contains, it's just a hash of the tree root, one or more parent commits identified by their hash, and some other metadata (author, date, etc). There's nothing about the commit that cares about the contents of its tree or its parents' trees. It's the git tooling on top of those structures which does.

In git world this distinction is referred to as the "porcelain" vs "plumbing", the plumbing being the underlying structures and porcelain being the stuff most people actually use (diffs, merges, rebases, etc...)

The geolocation of the IP isn't all that useful, it could be a VPN or an owned machine.

I very often have a vertical split in vim, both panes with the same file. I can skip around the file and look at stuff in one while actually writing code in the other. Is that more or less what the op is asking for?

So I believe the 2/3 answer to be true. I see the evidence in those tables. But intuitively, I still don't get it, and the explanation in the article isn't helping

> The short answer is that your initial odds of winning with door #1 (⅓) don’t change simply because the host reveals a goat behind door #3; instead, Hall’s action increases the odds to ⅔ that you’ll win by switching.

Well, why don't they change simply because the host reveals a goat? If you show me a three sided coin, I'd say there's a 1/3 chance of getting a particular side. If you then magically change gravity such that one of the other sides will never ever be landed on, would the two remaining sides not now have 50/50? I guess the article asserts that the "probability" doesn't get redistributed amongst the remaining options evenly, and I want to know why it doesn't and why it instead all "goes" to the one I didn't pick.

I don't mean to be confrontational in asking, and I don't doubt the answer, I just don't get why. Could anyone explain it better, or point me somewhere that does?

Groupcache addresses a very narrow use-case of caching: immutable data. Key's in groupcache cannot be changed or deleted, which is what allows for some of the cool things it does like distributing keys to multiple nodes automatically and prevention of stampeding. It's useful for things like caching lots of small static files (which I believe is what google uses it for), but it's not useful as a db cache where things are constantly changing.

Just glancing at dbox's caching package it looks like a much more general cache, with deletes and sets and all of that. So the two aren't really comparable.

As a shameless, related plug, here's a clojure-like seq library I wrote for go:

https://github.com/mediocregopher/seq

It isn't quite as pretty as this one is, but it does support (thread-safe) lazy sequences.

As someone who writes lots of go code, I don't think either of these are actually necessary, although they may be fun to use in some cases.

Also, for variety (and a shameless plug), check out:

https://github.com/mediocregopher/goat