Wow! This might just be what I've been hoping for, since 2020.
What I hoped for was more of a generic backend for multiplayer games.
But this is even better. It looks like a next-gen bittorrent which natively supports operations?
How did the EU support something like this without worrying about misuse?
It would be fun to build something like a Blender plugin that allows people to cooperate on free 3D models and animations. But it's also unclear whether anyone would be legally liable when something goes wrong.
(Edit: It sounds like we want to avoid legal issues by having everyone run their own local instances. I like that feeling of hosting our own servers. But something just feels odd. Since when are we allowed to be so open? What's the catch?)
People don't really like each other enough to work for a positive future. And yet they all want to live in a populous city with amazing opportunities/infrastructure/environment/etc
That's the problem.
If technology is so advanced and if solar panels are getting cheaper, why aren't we building new cities in the desert? (Or, why aren't we bringing new techs to small towns that already exist?)
If everyone is so tired of planned obsolescence and not owning their devices, why aren't we making new industries based on sustainable, repairable, open source phones?
There could be whole new towns running an economy on producing sustainable hardwares and then selling the repair parts. It wouldn't be a lot of money. But if everything we use is repairable and sustainable, we wouldn't need a lot of money.
I think you are projecting your interests onto the population at large, planned obsolescence of phones is not really a major concern for most people.
And if you are starting out by asking people to accept a poorer lifestyle because it will be sustainable and repairable, you are setting yourself up to lose.
I don't even agree that these are choices we necessarily have to make - I think we are getting closer and closer to sustainable growth, not merely subsistence.
> There could be whole new towns running an economy on producing sustainable hardwares and then selling the repair parts. It wouldn't be a lot of money. But if everything we use is repairable and sustainable, we wouldn't need a lot of money.
> Maybe I am just silly to hope for such a future?
Hopefully one day we will be advanced enough to start transforming the desert. It's not an easy task and I don't know enough about science or economics to say it's definitely feasible. It's just a hope.
And if people would hope for that then they would be willing to improve existing small towns too.
I don't like this trend that we all move to major cities and compete for scraps of lands and housing.
> If technology is so advanced and if solar panels are getting cheaper, why aren't we building new cities in the desert?
Why would we build cities in the desert? It's a lot easier to generate power in the desert and transport it to other places, than it is to supply cities in the desert with water, and increased energy costs due to having to run A/Cs 24-7-365.
If it's a question of land, there's plenty of land in places with water and better climate.
(Edit: Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion and is based on information before 2015)
China is good at controlling public opinions like this. I grew up in a "third line" city and we were always told if we don't have good grades, we end up having to clean the streets. But we were also told there is "social safety" for medicine.
In reality, you need a job and need to pay a monthly fee for "social safety". And in reality, people with low grades can end up in gangs or prison. Only the obedient type can get a hard labor job.
Many of these lucky ones would sleep where they work or stay with families or sleep at "migrant worker hotel/camps". It's not a life anyone would want to live.
In terms of quality of health care, even though all workers pay into "social safety", most cannot be seen by good doctors. For surgeries, they often had to travel to bigger cities and pay out of pocket. And " social safety" mostly covers visits to clinics (baiscally a consultation at a third world version of your Walgreen pharmacy counter).
I know people tend to hate the USA but it's not worse than China.
And then there are people like me, I only have hard skills and not enough soft skills. People end up not trusting me because they find out I'm hiding skills. And I end up not using them, and not even trying to convince people what's the right thing to do
Better take up that hard work then, because this response doesn't really signal "social skills".
I was talking about mental health issues (from genetic stuff like autism to PTSD and social anxiety) that prevent those social skills from developing, regardless of work (any more than someone with depression can just "work" on being happier).
IMO, the meat of this paper is in section 4.3 and 4.4.
And I cannot say for sure, but the formal proof of 4.4 basically summarizes the same points pointed out in 4.3.
Most of these are not inherently mathematical problems but a social one.
> Verifying sentience is a fuzzy concept. While they can be bound together momentarily as we see in [66 ], the binding is very easily decoupled.The verified user might choose to sell off their uniqueness identifier at time period 𝑡 + 1 if the verification which binds sentience with uniqueness ends at 𝑡.
Basically, people can sell identities
----
What really concerns me though, is how much and how often this paper discusses DRM, or in their own words, a "trust anchor"
> With the assumed threat model in our case, the lack of inherent trust in the user only compounds the unreliability of the model without any trust anchor.
> Assuming a proof of location is for a mobile device, rather than a particular human being, then associating the proof of uniqueness obtained under such a condition, i.e., without the involvement of a trust anchor, is unreliable.
I know that the authors aren't directly calling for more centralized trust. But given recent development at Google, we all know how the readers would think
> Verifying sentience is a fuzzy concept. While they can be bound together momentarily as we see in [66 ], the binding is very easily decoupled.The verified user might choose to sell off their uniqueness identifier at time period 𝑡 + 1 if the verification which binds sentience with uniqueness ends at 𝑡.
I got half way (up to the proof). After that they seemed to be describing the regular biometric identity program any country would set up. (Aadhar for India is the easiest comparison).
I felt that this was suggesting that Meta/Google/Platforms, need to start creating Account Recovery Offices.
If your account is compromised, then recovery means you have to prove you are the legitimate owner of the account. You are the real person, not the adversary.
Right now, this must be happening online, with some mix of captcha/image/ ID / Device verification.
But one part of this trilemma is that you need location as well to determine uniqueness.
Maybe you can get it from IP, but the stronger form would be in person verification.
——-
This is so big brother. Prove to me you are who you say to be.
> > Verifying sentience is a fuzzy concept. While they can be bound together momentarily as we see in [66 ], the binding is very easily decoupled.The verified user might choose to sell off their uniqueness identifier at time period 𝑡 + 1 if the verification which binds sentience with uniqueness ends at 𝑡.
> Basically, people can sell identities
I can see why Sam Altman believes iris scans are the future, it's definitely much more cumbersome to 'sell off' your iris. Especially if it needs to be rescanned on a daily basis or sooner.
But Worldcoin isn't doing that. They scan your eyes once and issue you a private key that you can then sell. Maybe one day they can give away scanners CueCat-style but I haven't seen any discussion of that.
> "consent extraction"... can only be used when the device passcode is known or not set.
I doubt it'll be used like that.
Does a legitimate user really need this? Apple already backs most local data (basically photos) to cloud anyways.
Frankly I was wishing for a jailbreak. Haven't used iPhones in years because rooting is hard, and no custom ROMs to provide future updates. (Btw custom Read Only Memory is such a weird oxymoron lol)
> Now we have companies like John Deere that use computers to lock out their own customers from fixing their own tractors. We have car companies charging to unlock heated seats and extra acceleration. Printers that lie to you about how much ink they have left, and brick themselves if you try to use cheaper unofficial ink. Etc.
Exactly! I believe this issue is becoming a very political one because some companies even lock people out of developer tools with a paywall. And when we are forbidding people from learning that they are being suppressed, very bad things happen.
I learnt programming by rooting my phone and then installing a compiler. Android 12 almost killed it alongwith Termux. Are you telling me that if I was born today, I'll simply give up? (Edit: To answer this quesiton myself, No. Today's kids are probably installing customized apk/ipa instead of rooting. Frida is also interesting. But if history repeats itself, even these tools will be banned (self signing dev packages, and using ptrace as a modding tool). And that affects more than just kids..)
Honestly companies have too much control through DRM and copyright. The public needs a way to fight back. If the laws were to be changed, I hope that companies are not immune from lawsuits through TOS, and I hope to see a few class-action lawsuits causing a company to lose some of its copyrights to the public domain.
When I learnt programming as a hobby, before I went to college, before my jobs,
I was hoping the future is that we build highly specialized, and customizable tools through open source code, not too small that they are just another programming language, and not too large that they cannot be connected to each other to create more values.
And I was hoping we'd stop joining big companies, and instead open up local consulting firms to help people configure existing open source components for their specific needs. And the work (the configurations) should be done once per project and never reused.
I recently found my old HTC phone and it had a "fastboot" feature. The boot time is just 4 seconds.
I hope old tech gets a comeback. I hope it creates more local jobs for phone repairs and software customizations. But it's probably just me being stupid.
What I hoped for was more of a generic backend for multiplayer games.
But this is even better. It looks like a next-gen bittorrent which natively supports operations?
How did the EU support something like this without worrying about misuse?
It would be fun to build something like a Blender plugin that allows people to cooperate on free 3D models and animations. But it's also unclear whether anyone would be legally liable when something goes wrong.
(Edit: It sounds like we want to avoid legal issues by having everyone run their own local instances. I like that feeling of hosting our own servers. But something just feels odd. Since when are we allowed to be so open? What's the catch?)