103700+ entries in 0.023s
mircea_popescu: sure, as in any socialist totalitarian state, it is better to not even care about the worthless money ; and try and achieve positions of power in the necessary feudal structure.
mircea_popescu: the modern democracy gotta make items that can not be useful ; and ONLY items that can not be useful.
mircea_popescu: pretty sure it's carefully constructed to be poisonous if burned.
mircea_popescu: nobody could possibly resist the power of modern democracy embeded in its ultimate representation, the unsolicited mailing.
mircea_popescu: i don;'t get it, wtf is the problem with the string "Galaxy note" whatever.
mircea_popescu: it's also not clear whence this idea of "recursive signing" comes from but anyway.
mircea_popescu: so then the same thing here as there ; this attribution issue is not useful to distinguish between the two methods.
mircea_popescu: and just move the whole tree over there, and claim i made it. what stops me ?
mircea_popescu: suppose i make an bitcoin.mp.1 which is like bitcoin.asciilifeform.1 except it includes #alf stole my girlfriend!
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform in general this "make new path and claim the work of others" is always available. i can make new path and claim the work of everyone right now, what's to stop me.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i was discussinfg an imaginary case where "resolution" actually means what it says.
mircea_popescu: conflicts aren't liable to be resolvable in general other than through the above described avenue
mircea_popescu: but in practice, should prb decide to come to sanity, the only avenue open to them is to... try and get their patches on the v tree.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform so this makes it a uniquely poor example, seeing how it will conceivably sink the extant scheme.
mircea_popescu: if a and b are conflictors then the resolution of their differences will be in either a or b tree ; importing code from either b or a respectively to satisfy ; and the other branch may die.
mircea_popescu: much like currently mod6's latest, the makefiles patch. takes 'mod6_der_high_low_s' , 'malleus_mikehearnificarum', and 'asciilifeform_maxint_locks_corrected' .
mircea_popescu: but this does not prevent c from calling both of them, does it ?
mircea_popescu: maybe we're not talking of the same thing, but isn't the very patch in question, with its 3 references, a converger ?
mircea_popescu: anyway - so you list all 3 if there's 3. fine. why does this make convergence impossible ?
mircea_popescu: "how not" is not really a good question ; an example suffices.
mircea_popescu: yes, but this time a clock is no longer necessary for the beheadings.
mircea_popescu: the next day, bee dog saw a duck. because it wasn't blue therefore it was white and because it didn't have arms it therefore had claws and the bee dog ran back to town and warned everyone of the white wolf
mircea_popescu: according to similar legend, there was once a bee dog who saw a glass bottle. because it wasn't red it therefore was grey and because it wasn't fleecy it therefopre was toothy and so the bee dog ran to town and warned everyone of the wolf.
mircea_popescu: i also dun get such grumbles ? apparently there's a lot of divergence to be discussed here lol.
mircea_popescu: well i dunno, the idea of code kinda is to be massive verticals. it;s unclear to me whence this "Signing entire project" comes from either.
mircea_popescu: there's multiple approaches available. a) each patch nails down the whole list of direct antecedents, so it'd be 3 in this case ; b) each patch signer picks an arbitrary antecedent to reference of the list (of here - 3), others are free to "fork" it by picking a different one or w/e.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: in any case, "-if + for" is NOT the same thing wherever it appears. even if the strings are equal.
mircea_popescu: the context is not imagined, but very mach part of a corrent understanding of text.
mircea_popescu: right, which is what happens here. there's no such thing as "code", but only "x's code" even the same word "for" is not the same word.
mircea_popescu: the same exact string, if said by me, is an idea - if said by rando, is nothing.
mircea_popescu: ie, idiots can not have ideas. no matter what they do.
mircea_popescu: no, my contention is that this "Sameness" is entirely illusory.
mircea_popescu: so yes, monkey makes ballista, shoots man. then monkey settles down, forgets about balista for a minute, spends TWO CENTURIES trying to figure out what man had already said. a rather hollow sort of victory, at least to my eyes.
mircea_popescu: her than the obvious renounciation of the constructivist delusion.
mircea_popescu: at issue is, of course, the constructivist approach to sets ; ZFC (which is the predominant, if unexamined, contemporaneous basis for set theory) disposes with this naivity, and instead approaches the matter greek-style : all sets are "constructed" by criteria in the sense of carving subsets from the superset V (ie the v Neumann universe). it is perhaps worth noting that russel's own solution favoured ~fucking over logic~ rat
mircea_popescu: and while he's incapacitated,
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-21#1587343 << to briefly revisit the whole "greeks were actually smarter than you" thread : naive set theory (as expoused by, say, frege) runs into a problem known as russel's paradox : should the set of sets that don't include themselves include itself ?
☝︎ mircea_popescu: i am saying however it makes cycles impossible, so let's see that part.
mircea_popescu: yeah, i'm not saying this is some sort of great improvement.
mircea_popescu: adding the hash of the antecedent to the actual file makes that hash part of the diff of the actual file, which makes it part of the hash of the patch (ie, diff of files).
mircea_popescu: dude. adding it in the actual file makes it part of the diff of the patch which makes it part of the hash.
mircea_popescu: adding it in the actual file makes it part of the hash for the file.
mircea_popescu: next a line will reference f1bebb8.... and next b line will reference 33529af2cb74...
mircea_popescu: note that "insert random garbage" has not actually been proposed as far as i know.
mircea_popescu: i have nfi what i'm looking at here ; none of them correctly reference their antecedent hashes, so it's just random garbage
mircea_popescu: now, because of a naive "repetition creates cycles" and "index=text content" joint assumption, you automatically imagine that two people signing the same (text+context) pair would create a cycle. not anymore - the situation neatly reduces to "two people sign the same patch", ie, having multiple seals for the same patch.
mircea_popescu: mplemented as introducing a comment which references the previous item in the indexed set - but this is by no means the only, or the required, or standards-candidate implementation.
mircea_popescu: nevertheless, two different solutions have been considered. one is to attach an outside clock to the process. this has the obvious disadvantage of attaching an outside clock to the process. the other is to modify the indexing process for the set, from the current "index is hash of textual content" to a more advanced "index is hash of textual content + its context". as an exemplary poc it was proposed that this change may be i
mircea_popescu: this outlines a theoretical problem, which is present. it does not have many practical implications at the present time for purely political ("thou shalt not cycle!" is an imperative) and sociological (not that many people hammering out that many patches yet) reasons. therefore its solution is not in any sense pressing.
mircea_popescu: 1. all ordered sets will create cycles whenever the index repeats ; 2. tmsr uses ordered sets to resolve specific problems of code development ; the application is called v ; 3. for the purpose tmsr uses ordered sets for, cycles are intolerable (the turing problem resolves to "acyclic set graph" in this particular case) ; 4. there is no way to guarantee numbers do not repeat.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform lemme state this thing from my pov for teh record here.
mircea_popescu: except woe, you can't make it because someone already made a patch for this block and you aren't going to see another block without a patch.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform if you mean that you and i both sign the same patch text in the same tree context, the result here has been the very common, and very benign, MULTIPLE SEALS. which we currently have.
mircea_popescu: (it is uniquely idiotic to clock v patches by bitcoin - because for eg what happens in 2115 when v is the basis of bitcoin and a bug occurs which makes blocks not happen anymore and has to be fixed by a vpatch which can't exist because no blocks.)
mircea_popescu: in any case, as described v becomes an actual bitcoin , very much in the sense of "slavegirl powered btc" - each "block" ie vpatch is mined etc. this de facto allows to have things such as a "development clock" for perhaps other usage.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform but when you write another one, you ~have to~ choose one of them.
mircea_popescu: well, do we actually want this ? it doesn't seem to make sense ; in the sense that when you write the patch in question, you write it atop a specified code ; which is the result of a press ; which has a "last patch applied" necessarily. so that one should be the "antecedent" properly speaking.
mircea_popescu: but yes, in the last instance, it's to demand that "same patch" can only mean, "same text" + "applied in same place".
mircea_popescu: by similarity to how we'd like block hashes inbitcoin to cover the whole block and not just parts.