virtualbluesky

Now 'not using AI' is being framed as the plucky resistance movement - not a great sign for said movement.

In that example the number on the scale is less important than chemical properties of the solution. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away and all that.

And thanks for the reply, I like the philosophy of the bits I understand so far. Rare project in that sense, fwiw.

What's the minimum viable number of relays if the entire internet was running on Iroh today?

This might sound pointed, but it truly isn't - why is this approach not already commonplace? As a concept, looking up a verifiable identity makes sense, but often ideas that made sense were looked into and discarded for valid reasons. Would be good to understand those to better understand when/when not to use the project?

Why is it that nobody discusses uploading all the company's IP to service providers that built their service by 'creatively interpreting' IP ownership?

Acting in public is hyperlocal - your behaviour affects those around you and gives those affected right of reply, if they have the courage to take it.

Publishing your actions on the Internet is a little different. If people were affected by the action, they are affected (likely unknowingly) by the publication too - and the audience that you grant right of reply has at best an ideological horse in the race, not true skin in the game. And not much courage is required to engage with an opposing position.

So "living publicly" on the internet leaves a permanent door open to ideological conflict, mob behaviour, and creates a disconnect between action and reaction - in both time and space.

Kinda alien for a monkey brain to wrap banana powered neurons around.

Do you have suggestions for those less informed about projects that are pushing the envelope on desktop UX?

It's the heat map of the error surface of the equation... Fairly well understood as a concept in the land of optimization and gradient descent.

Interesting, what's being visualized there is actually a failure mode for an unidentifiable equation - the valley where the error is zero and therefore all solutions are acceptable. Introduce noise into the measurements of error and that valley being too flat causes odd behaviour

It is possible to have both a crispy base and liquid yolk.

Ad hominem may require a human on the receiving end, no?

Another way to look at it is by analogy. You pick up a cup, the cup warms your hand uncomfortably, so you put it down.

You and the cup are objects, and physically send messages as you interact. That leads to changes in the physical world as each actor decides what to do with the incoming information, by physics or by conscious action.

So far so good. Except software is just information, and so the software version of that interaction includes the "person put hot cup down on table" event. That interests somebody, so they rapidly express their displeasure and rush to put a coaster underneath...

And that is valid a model of computing. Direct messaging between interacting objects, a stream of events of the produced changes, and actors that consume that stream for things and optionally chose to initiate a new interaction

Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair

Is this motivated reasoning from the perspective of an OS vendor? It seems like intermediating the user's intent using AI has the same hazards as intermediating the internet through a single search provider... i.e. it'll happen, but will tend towards benefiting larger interests, leaving the experience a little less rich than before.