raphinou
Joined 17 years ago
Karma
1,178
Submissions
420
Member since
Jan 25
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 day ago
I also would like it to have stable supported libraries. But this doesn't seem to be a focus. It's a pitty, we have a Foss solution and it's hard to integrate with it....
Comment · 18 days ago
I've learned rust when llms appeared and it helped me developed while I learned. My use of llms evolved (https://asfaload.com/blog/ai_use/) and is still evolving: I'm currently at a point where I write most app code myself and use llms to review it. Test and doc I like to delegate to llms, and in that I'm the reviewer.
I think I've found the middle point that fits me: llms have an added value, but I think I avoid most of their idiosyncrasies.
Comment · 1 month ago
Asfaload takes different technical decisions:
- multisig approach: you can require multiple signers to sign a release for it to be accepted by downloaders. Protects against account compromise. Sigstore relies on OIDC, but this makes it often reliant on megacorps (and harder to self host, see next point)
- very easy to self host. You can deploy it internally without any problem, eg in an airgapped environment where you want to distribute signed artifact. This is impossible with Sigstore.
- accountless: the key is the identity. The multisig approach diminishes the problems that long-lived keys might bring. And you don't rely on an external OIDC provider to be able to sign.
- Air-gapped signers: it is possible to have air-gapped signers, as signing does not rely on an online service to verify an identity.
- easy for downloader: the use only has to provide the download url, and this is sufficient to authenticate the download.
- easy to audit: the backend data is stored in a git, that will be mirrored in different places, and anyone can mirror it for themselves.
You might agree or not with these choices, but there are enough differences to say that it doesn't reinvent the wheel, it's providing another approach which I think has its advantages.
Comment · 1 month ago
The solution I'm working on is https://www.asfaload.com. To get a quick idea, see the videos, incl. demos, at https://www.asfaload.com/videos/. The code is at https://github.com/asfaload/asfaload. There's no binary executable published yet, so you'd need to compile. However, I'm very interested to help you on the setup and get your feedback. Don't hesitate to contact me by mail on the address found in my profile ( ${my_hn_username} gmail address) and I'll be happy to help!
Comment · 1 month ago
Just mentioning because you explicitly said builds are unsigned: I'm working on a (open source) signing solution supporting GitHub releases that is easy to use for both signers and downloaders. Let me know if this would interest you (not immediately putting link to avoid spamming).
Comment · 1 month ago
Doesn't make it less ridiculous, and that price for the other brands isn't less ridiculous either.
Comment · 1 month ago
You describe an exhaustive documention, but some documentation would already be better than none. Perfect is enemy of good, as your comment illustrates.
Comment · 2 months ago
But why? What can be the internal justification? What do they think they win by doing this?
Comment · 2 months ago
Any advice on in and outdoor detectors os small particles for home use?
Comment · 2 months ago
This is probably a naive question, but I'm wondering: isn't the usefulness of a reserve seriously diminished if using it prevents refilling it afterwards? What was the use case covered by this huge reserve if only a small part can be used before geopardising its future?
Comment · 2 months ago
I would have thought it would generate enormous wave, but that's clearly not the case. I think some of the biggest waves was generated by a mountain sliding or collapsing in the sea. I expected something similar here. Anyone know why not?
Comment · 2 months ago
Was it a book you read? In interested.
Comment · 2 months ago
so all such 'energy' storage are to be used as heat and no other form of energy? The name energy storage is somewhat confusing then, even if not incorrect? Heat storage would be more accurate iiuc.
Comment · 2 months ago
But all the examples you give have a heat source of high temperature and dense energy, and a lot of energy is lost in it's transformation, as illustrated by the combustion engine. How can heat be a good energy storage if so much is lost when you want to use it?
Comment · 2 months ago
I think I have read that heat is hard to convert to useful energy. Can someone confirm? But the, if that's true, why use heat as energy storage?
Open source multisig signoff solution: https://asfaload.com