I don’t think you’re using straw man correctly.

You’re naively referring to how consensus should work while completely ignoring both the well-defined attacks I referenced and the reality of large actors in a consensus network. You don’t know what you’re talking about or you don’t understand how the theory works or you’re possibly just being obtuse. No matter what, this is pointless. Good luck.

If login tokens are stored on a public ledger replay attacks write themselves. Public or private, keeping every login token ever is a horrible audit mechanism and doesn’t scale well. At scale, speed to generate becomes a concern. Not at scale, something lighter is faster.

A normal database scales better than a license blockchain and doesn’t require extra computation to write. Audit logs and hashes prevent extra edits. License files signed by a central authority don’t require a database and the central authority is functionally equivalent albeit less expensive than a blockchain.

I am still interested in a good use for the tech. I have yet to see one that is genuine.

If any of it is rewritable, none of it is immutable. You can’t have it both ways.

“You just don’t know” doesn’t answer my question. A private blockchain, by design, is already owned by its largest actors.

I don’t know that it is, though. Can you show me form of blockchain in the real world where this doesn’t apply? Saying large actors can’t affect a specific piece of internet technology, so far, is rather like teaching physics without friction. It’s nice and fun and easy to understand but completely ignores the reality of any implementation.

Go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me blockchain implementations that are immutable post append. On my end, we can talk about Bitcoin forks. We can also talk about the current state of consensus mechanisms, each of which has the explicit ability for large actors to rewrite history in their favor. Even Monero is susceptible because this is fundamental to the blockchain in any form. It’s been a huge reason why I make sure I get paid up front for any consulting I do in this space.

What exactly are some of the use cases for an infinitely growing, append-only database built primarily so its largest users can rewrite history at will?

The pyproject.toml spec is ten years old. Python 3 is almost twenty years old. The community standard moved within the last five years. Tox is only necessary if you want to validate across specific versions so it can be replaced by tools like Poetry. If you’ve got GitHub workflows that’s the standard anyway so you should be running something like act locally. Static typing redundancy is a waste of compute.

If you’re going to be an asshole, make sure you can back everything up. You can’t so I’d recommend taking a breath and going outside.

Edit: I looked through your GitHub and even though your profile name is “msftcangoblowm” you don’t seem to use .yaml but instead the YAML extension Windows devs use.

What the fuck? The only task that didn’t degrade across most models was Python. Very basic things like JSON, Makefiles, and schemas got screwed. Fiction, emails, and food menus got screwed. Did you even bother to read the legend? If you consider a single pass to be “producing and manipulating language” you didn’t bother to read the idiotic article you started this thread in support of. Good luck.

Edit: why do you lie?

Catastrophic corruption (80 and below) occurs in more than 80% of model, domain combinations.

Sorry, I assumed you would have actually read the DELEGATE-52 study linked instead of just the abstract. For “a model optimized for replacing StackOverflow” that is “better at writing papers than most students” LLMs sure did pretty bad at those tasks over multiple rounds.

I’m just gonna copy what I put in another comment to highlight why Dawkins thinks “Claudia” is conscious

Claudia: That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence. . .

…

Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?

Claudia: That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence. . .

…

Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?

Oh it’s actually stupider than the tweet makes it seem.

My conversations with several Claudes and ChatGPTs have convinced me that these intelligent beings are at least as competent as any evolved organism. If Claudia really is unconscious, then her manifest and versatile competence seems to show that a competent zombie could survive very well without consciousness.

Competency should imply the ability complete a lengthy task (eg hunting, building a nest, writing a paper). LLMs can’t.

It is. The vuln itself was found with guidance of an AI tool. Doesn’t make the vuln any less bad. Does make Xint look really shitty for constantly shilling with boilerplate AI instead of a good human analysis (or at least something above boilerplate).

The only guaranteed fix is in the kernel. You’ll want to check your distro for the CVE. The disclosers very happily bring up all the distros affected but do not seem to have reached out to any of them to also patch. The CVE itself is still waiting for NVD analysis beyond its base score.

I’m not actively saying they did anything wrong but I am saying they’re blowing smoke about responsible disclosure.

I think you’re displaying a very big gap between understanding risk assessment and understanding task completion. So far I have not seen anyone say they would not complete the task. I have seen people complete risk assessment. Risk assessment does not mean I will not do something, it just reflects the urgency with which I will do it. Most self-hosted users can safely apply basic risk assessment to see, while the impact may be high, the likelihood is low. Obviously the likelihood increases the more hands off you are with, say, unattended container updates for things that can escape containers or access the underlying system. Should most self-hosted users literally drop everything, rush home, and apply the patch? No, basic risk assessment does not merit that. Should everyone apply the patch? Yes.

Your comment said Forgejo has a disclosure process. The article says the author went with a carrot disclosure after reading the disclosure process and making a value judgement. Because your comment only mentioned Forgejo having a disclosure process, not an evaluation of the author’s evaluation of the disclosure process, it made you appear as if you had not read the article.

In your response to me calling that out, you offer an analysis. The author is lazy for using carrot disclosure over the defined disclosure process. That’s a valid take. I’m not going to disagree with that.

I don’t think you read the article.

This is greenwashing. I really dig the food drive that fed people; she could have done more by not touring at all on basically every other front.

This is 100% AI generated. This isn’t the community for that.

I watched Lost as it aired. I started watching From last year. It is exactly like Lost. Every episode some crazy fucking plot line spins up. Every episode gets a grab bag of horror mystery trope. Every season ends on a cliffhanger. Every season does absolutely nothing to resolve anything. The world building is pretty neat and keeps expanding with all sorts of crazy detail. By now there are so many open questions it will take several biblical length novels to actually explain anything. Like Lost, I expect it to end with a dog.

Don’t fucking watch it if you want any closure. There will be none. It is Lost.