thadt
Joined 4 years ago
Joined 4 years ago
[1] Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Crime of Congo” 1909
[2] Mark Twain, “King Leopold’s Soliloquy: A Defense of His Congo Rule” 1905
> Strategic Vision: Evolve PaperPilot from a best-in-class PDF workstation into the Universal Document Operating System for humans and AI agents. [2]
[1] https://github.com/KrushnaVardhanReddy/PaperPilot/blob/main/...
[2] https://github.com/KrushnaVardhanReddy/PaperPilot/blob/main/...
So, academia has become preoccupied measuring metrics and (temporarily) lost perspective: history isn't about the past - it's about the future.
I would argue that in this moment, history is too important to be left to just the specialists. We're not "witnessing change" - we are actively making change, and there is a lot more to be done before we're anywhere near equilibrium again. We can't go back and repeat the past (nor would we want to), but we can make better decisions about our future if we're aware of it. The generations not long before us went through a world in significant change - and now it's our turn. We should learn from their experiences.
The same can be said for the news we watch. Or the history we read. Or the stories we tell each other. In 2026, we have swung too far toward the fanciful end of the spectrum of storytelling. We're now beset on all sides by BS generators (both human and artificial) and it's more important than ever to carefully handle truth in our stories.
But make no mistake - the teller of a story is absolutely crafting a reality for you. It's on you to decide whether you trust the narrator, or not.
Part of working through history from (only) 100 years ago is an impression of how quickly societies were changing then. This isn't the first time we've had the table cleared, and it hopefully won't be the last.
Which isn't to downplay the upheaval that people are in - it is definitely traumatic. But we've been through disruption before. Hopefully we'll make fewer costly mistakes this time...
Which illustrates your very point, right? In an environment where we have a firehose of information pointed at us, our natural reaction is to fast filter/summarize and then discard or react. You’re saying we need to slow down and engage with each other (real people) on more than that superficial level. I agree. Thank you for taking the time to write this.
What about the alternative possibility - the author is a rather intelligent being, but what they've written in this instance is idiotic?
Just because I like to think of myself as a non-idiot, doesn't mean I haven't brought strings of words into existence that were ill-conceived. In those cases, having someone come along and say something like "eh mate - you're confusing correlation with causation here!" is valuable feedback.
Politely disagree. I read Colin's when it came out and it was as useful in 2009 as Filippo's is today. If you only pay attention to the cryptography community every few years when you need it for something, then usually a whole lot has happened in the interval. It is incredibly useful to get the perspective of someone paying attention to give you a breakdown of "where we're at today".
A great example is the other conversation about SHA-256. Colin's recommendation was "hey, better plan to migrate from this in the future." The thing that's happened between then and now is, well, SHA-256 is actually still 'ok' when used in current constructions. That's useful to know in 2026.
If I get busy building stuff, it'll be nice to have a check-in again in a few years (or earlier if something significant happens first).
Yes, this exactly. If we wanted ‘verifiable’ app distribution via browser, then we’d need browsers to implement some way to cross check the code downloaded vs a publicly published list somewhere - similar to certificate transparency or what WhatsApp is trying to do with an extension [1]. Without that, web apps are left working with a weaker threat model.
[1] https://engineering.fb.com/2022/03/10/security/code-verify
Surely someone with a neuro/psych background has picked this up and developed an evidence-backed explanation.