I've been thinking of setting up a simple server that publishes the public keys at a known endpoints. You point an A record for one of your subdomains at the machine and it can provision a TLS cert. Then you can be reasonably confident your connection hasn't been MitM (assuming your trust your cert provider) when you query for those public keys.
The one presented in the article has fewer moving parts though. I'm also curious what ideas are bouncing around your head if you're willing to share.
You're aware of the privacy implications but think people talking about avoiding people who use them are proposing dumb arguments? I don't follow your logic.
How does not talking to people will solve privacy problems of the new technology? Are you assuming that Meta will see that you ignored your coworker with smart glasses and shut down the project, along with Apple and other smart-glasses manufacturers? I'd love to follow your logic, if you can't follow mine.
Ostracization has worked before. And ostracization can lead to decreased sales, which they will definitely notice. If engaging with people to talk about privacy implications involves sacrificing your privacy, I feel that it is reasonable approach.
It's like if I had to be punched by someone to talk to them about why them punching people all the time wasn't alright, then I'd find it very reasonable to just not associate with that person.
I think you're outlining a relationship with people who actually want to actively engage in these concerns in a responsible manner, and these platforms have definitely demonstrated the opposite and a willingness to use that engagement to inflict the very behavior you want to moderate.
Except of hope that it will decrease sales (which is still not solving privacy issue), can you see other possible negative effects of the ostracization based on the gadgets they use?
Or device battery life was shorter because we hadn't developed better battery technology or better power management
You talk about the misaligned incentives of replaceable batteries but fail to point out the incentive built-in batteries: need to replace a battery, buy a whole new device.
You should actually read the text of the bill. It basically tells anyone who asks what your birthday is. It places no limitations on how your age should be verified, or how requesters can use your information. And if you think this is where this kind of de-anonymization will stop, I have a bridge to sell you.
So this bill creates a commission to ensure that the information cannot be stolen or breached from operating systems, but says nothing about how the applications querying this information must protect or leverage it. I basically requires that any application get to know a user's birthday, as long as it's "necessary". What a fucking joke! I'm so sick and tired of this bullshit.
Edit: Oh, and the commission gets to make up the rules on how ages should be verified. So, prepare for a whole other level of PII leakage that isn't even captured by the text of the bill.
When I was going to register it with Porkbun, it showed this warning:
> This TLD has very strict verifiable contact requirements. You MUST use verifiable contact information or your domain may be suspended and / or deleted without warning by the registry and without refund. The registry is also extremely difficult to contact and communicate with, it's possible that you will be asked to rectify your unverifiable contact info and do so but then they will ignore you. Yes, it is pure insanity and bad enough that we took the time to add this very special warning.
> This TLD does not allow WHOIS privacy but generally redacts your personal information. This means that your personal contact information will be sent to the registry but it should not be made public. Please note that some registries will make your contact information public if you are registering as a company, organization, or something other than an individual person.
I made this as a set it and forget it site, so I didn't want to deal with any hassle that might come up. Have you registered .in domains and experienced anything like this?
> I made this as a set it and forget it site, so I didn't want to deal with any hassle that might come up. Have you registered .in domains and experienced anything like this?
No, sorry I haven't dealt with .in domains but it does seem as an Indian, I have easier way to get them / get myself verified with digi-locker etc.
> This TLD does not allow WHOIS privacy but generally redacts your personal information. This means that your personal contact information will be sent to the registry but it should not be made public. Please note that some registries will make your contact information public if you are registering as a company, organization, or something other than an individual person.
I don't really understand this portion being honest, like, if as an individual I try to get a .in domain, will it just be the govt of India (NIXI) who sees my ID and personal details or would it also be shown in the whois details.
I will be honest that these sound quite an hassle even as Indian resident. Personally most of my dealings in domains are done on a more privacy friendly way so I am not sure how I feel about this but let me know if there is anything I can be of help because I dislike Linkedin as much as you might do, haha.
I've made it through about the first ten parts of section 2. Some additional feedback I've put together:
* Sometimes explanations are overly lacking, other times they get repetitive. This feels like it needs to be accompanied by a course to fully deliver value. For instance, we're kind of thrown into truth gates without having really gone over them. And understanding how to combine NMOS and PMOS gates could use a better intro. Once I knew the answers, I got my brain to reset to my VLSI course from college, but I think a better primer could've accomplished that. In other places, I feel like we get more refreshers on some components than others.
* The routing algorithm needs to be better. I get a lot of staircase wires and straight up overlaps.
* Right clicking should clear attempted connections.
* There should be away to delete components you've placed. Maybe I just couldn't figure it out.
* I think icons should be included on the components pane. I kept clicking NOR when I wanted NOT and a better visual cue would have helped.
* It feels like difficulty is all over the place. Perhaps this is corrected with better explanations, but creating the NAND gates and NOR gates were much more difficult compared to AND and OR. Perhaps actually having us construct those gates without NOT would change the difficulty curve.
* The success overlay shows up too fast. Especially on levels that are just a demonstration (like the NMOS and PMOS Again levels) you don't get to to see everything the level is trying to demonstrate before the level announces that you have succeeded.
* In the intros, when there are new components, their description pops in. Instead, it should just advance like a slide. It's very jarring.
* Also, it's unclear that those aren't part of the intro. Maybe instead of popping them up, flash the little information icon next to them.
* What you call a capacitor I believe is actually a combination of a transistor and a capacitor. I think people will be hard pressed to find documentation on a capacitor with an enable switch. But, then you use this same capacitor to form a 1T1C cell. I'm rather confused.
* Many times when I finished a level, the circuit would switch to a prior level's solution.
* Some components have the same letters for every terminal (e.g. half-adders), meaning you need to scroll over the terminals to know what they do.
* Some levels have many test cases, and there's now way to see them all.
* Level 2.3 talks about us having registers, but we never covered those. In fact, I think we're still a ways away since we need to get from switches to flip-flops then to registers.
There isn't much order to this. Just what I recorded while working through it. Overall it's pretty good, I just think polish would got quite a ways.
Thank you for sharing this! I'm really excited to get to the more GPU specific parts. I basically did this for CPUs in college and I'm excited to see what preconception and missing conceptions I have for GPUs.
Thanks for all the feedback! I've fixed some of these issues (e.g., capacitor levels, switching back to prior levels upon finishing / refreshing, deletion (theres a sign when you hover a component now)), but many of them i'll be fixing today.
I'll be uploading arcs 3 and 4 soon (which will be programming the CPU and the start of GPU arch soon (people have gone through arcs 1 and 2 slightly faster than I expected)
I think Hacker News auto-title editing has caught this one. It's actually "Your Code is Worthless". It dives into how lines of code has become a productivity metric once again, what actual metrics should be used, and how AI is not holding up to those.
The one presented in the article has fewer moving parts though. I'm also curious what ideas are bouncing around your head if you're willing to share.
reply