torbid

Right and this is what I am saying is backwards with the protocol. It is not in anyone's best interest that some random 3rd party takes responsibility to preserve data for CAs indefinitely to prove things. The CA should identify where it has its copy in the extension and looking at one CAs copy one would find every other CAs copy of the same CT log.

If CAs have to share CTs and have to save everything the CT would save to their last submission then no CA can destroy the log without colluding with other CAs.

(I.e. your log ends abruptly but polling any other CA that published to the same CT shows there is more including reasons to shut you down.)

I don't see how a scheme where the CT signer has this responsibility makes any sense. If they stop operating because they are sick of it, all the CAs involved have a somewhat suspicious looking CT history on things already issued that has to be explained instead of having always had the responsibility to provide the history up to anything they have signed whether or not some CT goes away.

I understand that. But..

If 12 CAs send to the same log and all have to save up to their latest entry not to be declared incompetent to be CAs, how would all 12 possibly do a worse job of providing that log on demand than a random 3rd party who has no particular investment at risk?

(Every other CA in a log is a 3rd party with respect to any other, but they are one who can actually be told to keep something indefinitely because they would also need to return it for legitimizing their own issuance.)

These sound like good improvements but I still don't really get why the ct log server is responsible for storage at all (as a 3rd party entity)..

Couldn't it just be responsible for its own key and signing incremental advances to a log that all publishers are responsible for storing up to their latest submission to it?

If it needed to restart and some last publisher couldn't give it its latest entries, well they would deserve that rollback to the last publish from a good publisher..

Huh? I don't think the SEC would (just) apologize for letting you get away with manipulation of a significant portion of the US index funds just because they should have noticed you sooner.

They tried this before with fruit. The US companies just sold their interest in production and have plenty of other options for acquisition if they try to tax beyond the relative ease of South America verse anywhere else in the global south.

I would agree that letting black market bs continue will eventually lead to groups that could threaten global control on random other commodities but that's no reason kick the can further down this road.

Sure, but have you ever seen a pet parrot with the person it bonded to?

I've had cats that were affectionate and cats that came to the house only for food.

The overall problem with this study is that it does nothing to try to categorize the relationship to the pets or eliminate the correlation problems like almost no one has an outdoor cat in an urban environment or any cat in an urban studio apartment.

I don't see why bird ownership wasn't similar to cat.. Would mammal be important or would there be a hidden variable in being able to house a dog or cat as one sometimes needs less permissions for smaller animals in rental agreements, etc..

I guess that's a question of whether you like the musician or the music. In the arc of the song, the boyfriend clearly developed good taste.

Yes, though 70% is a normal cut-off, I think most versions more heavily bias the placement towards 1/2 in the past square instead of the 1/9th of real chance. Without the bias it is simpler to always guess no.

It seems to me like the goal is to work around the user having to type that to use Bcachefs while implying that they will have with the standard gatekeepers to avoid any limits on adoption via quality checks.

It doesn't work at all, Potter Stewart wasn't stupid or uninformed about what a secular republic is, so he was acting in bad faith to push for personal discretion definitions that will mostly be performed by people in the majority faith.

If the goal is to hoard a currency itself instead of use it as the exchange between real investments then this makes perfect sense, but those people shouldn't be upset when we tell them we don't directly accept their "currency".

This sentiment models a correction to a complaint I first heard with people who tell us everything fell apart since we ended the gold standard. They ignore that we raised all boats rapidly when we didn't pin everything to governments ability to fight gold hoarders for small amounts of gold entering the market. Even gold hoarders are better off in terms of what the market has created to exchange for their gold because that exchange ceased to be limiting on market expansion.

One could say the US economy was exponential both before and after the currency change, but as with Moore's Law, it gets harder to remain exponential if as few as one limiting factor is emerging.