Thank you for your concern I will update it.
Can I include this license after a different license still? Been wondering which one gets applied first/last.
If you include multiple licenses, it could be argued that it is dual-licensed and you could potentially end up in the worst of both worlds. It's best to just not mess around with anything before the header, if you can help it.
This resonates with me. I have close friends who would be great co-founders, 3 out of 4 have moved in to camper trucks or vans. They work easy remote jobs and just enjoy life. We are mostly in our early 30s, worked in startups together over the years as engineers, sometimes as first or second hire. It's going to be quite hard to talk one of them in to being a principal co-founder at this point.
You can't write off all lending that you don't see as "worth it" as a "penny box". We spend money on things like housing and cars because those things empower us to create and forge new paths ahead. Sometimes it's more of a liability we are putting capital in to--but we tell ourselves it's an investment. Likewise lending capital to acquire a company may have societal gains, to say nothing of the long term economic growth that this argument ignores.
In the past you would boast if your IM software was instant/fast. We all wanted real time everything if only to push the SOTA. But the results aren't ideal; we have slack overload, zoom fatigue, gmail addiction etc. I think there is a trend, now that fast is the baseline, where we will see more software that intentionally gives people space & time to think and reflect.
Isn't that interesting! It's like we all just take it for granted what "tech" means and something is not "tech" if it doesn't fit those parameters. For me it was some time around when Viber came out that I was like "wow, do we really need so many of the same messenger?" It makes sense because instantaneity was really revolutionary from a human historical perspective, but as you say, now that we have this baseline, I hope people become more receptive to exploring technology that's designed for usability and not technological novelty that isn't even novel anymore...
Let's not get too ahead of ourselves; a general AI and better brain-computer interfacing first. Then we'll see where we are at. Everything else is just snapchat/tiktok/minecraft/roblox, HTTP/HTML, and cryptography.
I was worried this submission would get deleted for being irrelevant, but I'm glad others have picked up on the theme here.
There is a market for justice, but more importantly hacking is about systems; breaking them, securing them, improving them. What we see here is a system breaking down in the wild, and that sparked my interest as a hacker.
Yes it's cool to see how systems fail, but it's even better if you do that and have some sort of solution. "If you show a man a pile of shit, you should also show him a shovel."
You're totally right and I think your idea could help.
Somethething else that could help is cheap, decentralized forms of communication. If we want to enable real momentum for change, people need to be able to talk to each other without fear that every word is easily traced back to their government issued identity.
Others have commented that evidence of Mallory's wrong doings would not be permitted in trial. Assuming this is true, court won't work.
Another thing I've gleaned is that Mallory spends incredible amounts of money to undermine the stability and security of our internet & hardware. We cannot compete with them on that level; we don't have the means to stabilize as quickly as they destabilize.
I actually want to know if anyone has any ideas about what to do in this reality. What do you do when constructive and legal means both fail? Seems like Mallory can get away with anything.
> Another such area of work is logical time, manifest as vector clocks, version vectors, and other ways of abstracting over the ordering of events. This idea generally acknowledges the inability to assume synchronized clocks and builds notions of ordering for a world in which clocks are entirely unreliable.
Hardware is unreliable. Software is possibly less reliable. We have known that for a long time. The author talks on a conceptual level about logical time, but this concept isn't enough to understand the real challenges & possible solutions of keeping interactions in your system logically ordered in the dimension of time[0].
> You can think of coordination as providing a logical surrogate for "now." When used in that way, however, these protocols have a cost, resulting from something they all fundamentally have in common: constant communication. For example, if you coordinate an ordering for all of the things that happen in your distributed system, then at best you are able to provide a response latency no less than the round-trip time (two sequential message deliveries) inside that system.
Consensus protocols don't provide a logical surrogate for 'now', a log does that. The silver bullet for assuring that your transactions are ordered correctly is immutability[1]--"If two identical, deterministic processes begin in the same state and get the same inputs in the same order, they will produce the same output and end in the same state.[0]"
It's important, from the perspective of the implementor, to understand that there are multiple pieces to this puzzle, and that each protocol has very specific details that can make or break the reliability and performance of a distributed system. This is similar to how a small bug in your cryptography code can expose the entire system to threat. Paxos itself can be implemented in a myriad of ways, and each decision the implementor makes must be well researched.
