We do need a base layer of human verification for several reasons that will make themselves clear in the coming years. Can we maybe try that with a system of IRL humans and inherently pro-privacy tech like ZK proofs, instead of a system of proprietary soul-sucking nightmare orbs? Be creative, think outside the orb.
Also, such a system doesn't need any kind of currency attached to it.
First new browser engine to pass acid3 test since the test was invented. Nice. Hopefully this will turn into something end users can benefit from. I'd love to see done to Chrome what WireGuard did to OpenVPN.
The pace at which Ladybird is evolving is impressive, both LibWeb and LibJS. I've never seen anything like it. The amount of work needed to make a browser work is uncanny and they're making it look easy (it's not).
I was around when webkit browsers started to appear. Back then, the engine was leveraging almost a decade of work on KHTML. It wasn't something pulled out of thin air. All popular browsers nowadays have their roots in 90's and early 2000's codebases.
Servo is a very cool project as well, I'm rooting for them!
> I'd love to see done to Chrome what WireGuard did to OpenVPN.
While I share the hope, the situation is (imho) very different. OpenVPN is FOSS while Chrome is proprietary... OpenVPN is a tool which still helps many many many users while Chrome is a mixed bag - pretty good browser made by a worlds largest advertising company.
Please, stop doing that. You won't get anywhere by saying all other major projects that occupy the same space as Bitcoin are scams. You're not helping bitcoin by doing that. You're not convincing anyone that bitcoin isn't crypto; it's the first crypto, and frankly it's been superseded by other FOSS projects like Monero and Ethereum in various places. Either all of crypto is a scam, or we have to take things on a case-by-case basis. By using this Bitcoin-only logic, you're just turning more people over to the former position. Many of the best innovators in the scene have been working on anything but Bitcoin for a long time.
Wait, so crypto is a useless ponzi scheme UNLESS it is using a proof-of-work scheme based on churning text/image models? None of the existing uses made sense until you integrated AI into the backend consensus system? How does that backend change suddenly make crypto useful and not a global ponzi scheme according to you?
Not even saying this is a bad idea if it is possible, though. Just pointing out this contradiction in your criticism of crypto. We should definitely be looking for ways to use proof-of-work without proof-of-waste, as it is still technically the most secure consensus method afaik.
I felt like I was in crazy town, trying to tell people that crypto is actually something that helps many people, always getting shot down with absurd dogma like "crypto has no use cases" or "gordon goner racist NFTs". People believed everything they heard from a blog (you know the one) set up specifically to discredit this entire class of technology by associating every dumb thing with its image as a whole. I've been Bitcoin-literate since I was a pre-teen (I'm early 20s now) and felt trapped. Bitcoin maximalists made me hopeful that at least Bitcoin specifically would be socially acceptable, but honestly they've got it wrong too. I was very delighted today to see Scott stick up for the concrete use cases that are out there. Vitalik Buterin seems fairly respected in the same space as ACX.
It's the curse of influencers and it's not specific to crypto. Influencers identify a vibe that works with their followers and lean into it, exploiting it for views and shares. Most of the time the vibe is only tangentially related to a much more complicated reality. But complicated reality is boring and vibes are fun, so influencers convince their followers that the vibe is true and the followers become galvanized along the vibe.
I've seen so many people quote a Youtuber as their source for a belief that it's crazy. Even when the primary sources are available. But that's the age we live in.
Realistically I think you're right; I probably have my conspiracy cap on too tight, but it's too perfect to me that the group of people who will soon need crypto the most are being socially incentivized to reject it now. I might have struck a nerve with the anti-crypto vibe enjoyers.
Yes, there's a lot of propaganda pushing this narrative with the ultimate objetive of completely prohibiting any sort of alternative currency:
- Conflating crypto with exchanges, or Bitcoin in particular with oportunistic scams.
- The complete nonsense about PoW being 'detrimental to the environment'. It's sad that even technical audiences fall for this at all.
- Speculating on its price has nothing to do with the use case, which is to transfer money without an intermediary. You certainly can, but it has nothing to do with the objective so any criticism about this is disingenous.
Bitcoin (and some others such as Ethereum or Monero) just work, and and has worked extremely well for over a decade. I was able to pay for hosting and plenty other services anonymously, to circumvent local restrictions when nothing else worked, transfer money to family abroad, etcetera.
And yes HN is extremely vulnerable to propaganda due to a mixture of lack of common sense, lack of life experience and snobbery.
I expected a bit better of someone who faced a lot of anti-Wayland dogma, which I noted as being very similar to anti-cryptocurrency dogma, most of which I am seeing repeated for the umpteenth time in this post and thread.
I hate SMS too, but I think this decision will hurt Signal infinitely more than it will hurt SMS. By that I mean it will not affect SMS at all and only Signal.
4chan has nowhere near the influence over children that TikTok does. Maybe a /pol/ thread gets 500 replies or something, while Cobra Tate (a sex trafficker who went viral by openly hating women) gets 100M+ views by literal children on TikTok who go on to repeat everything he says.
And yet, primary complain about tiktok is that it is shallow or cringy. I remember some complains over ableist algorithms. The complains about racism and what not are vanishingly rare.
I added "gender" (an IANA registered JWT claim) to my JWT payload schema and found Copilot will not provide any suggestions after that. Not on the same line, nor in the rest of the file. After removing the word gender entirely, it works again.
Additionally, I get "No completion is available." from copilot.el on every line after that one, but completing on lines before it does work. When removing "gender", it works again, e.g. suggesting `"iat": Type.Integer()` for that line. I don't actually plan on using "gender" in my tokens, but it is a bit frustrating that an arbitrary word can opaquely disable Copilot for the rest of the file.
They're giving you a method of repeatable steps for you, yourself, to perform to see if the issue is encountered. That is more than passing a smell test.... that passes for at the minimum of a valid bug report.
Which part of the smell test does this not pass exactly?
They just described almost identical behaviour but with an isolated test case. Yeah there’s no video or whatever but it does support the original diagnosis.
Also, such a system doesn't need any kind of currency attached to it.