107800+ entries in 0.039s
mircea_popescu: and for this reason ratings can't have to be signed - they can never be opposed to the maker.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: whether he did or didn't or did a bum job of it or anything isn't even at issue - the oppositive quality of facts distingushes them from mere meaning just like the thumb stands out on the hand.
mircea_popescu: and re the facts/fiction discussion : a very good rule of thumb to distinguish fact from fiction is right here - can it be opposed to anyone ? for instance, trump's election is a fact, and here it is a fact because i have opposed it to alf to force him to reconsider his political evaluator.
mircea_popescu: there's two reasons one does not wish to be cavallier with signed matter. one is purely technological, as discussed briefly above, but the more important one is ecology of the republic of the mind. you wish to make THE STRICT MINIMUM of signed statements you can get by with AND NOT A SINGLE MORE.
mircea_popescu: in fact, you can not at any point raise any objection to any of my ratings. they're whatever they are and you're more than welcome to go hang, there's no "detrimental reliance" on them for you.
mircea_popescu: and herein included - all my ratings. you can not at some point come and say "X scammed me of a btc and you had him rated +1 therefore you owe me some cents"
mircea_popescu: not that there's anything wrong with stealing from the wise.
mircea_popescu: anyway. merchant law, which incidentally i advise all curious minds to review, not only long predates civil law or the british mandaciousa attempts to enact a systematized "common law" as older than it was - but actually informed all legal work of the states. they basically stole the merchant's code much like the french stole the templar's wealth.
mircea_popescu: it's not just precedent, either. it has its own sort of contorted but domain-appropriate logic.
mircea_popescu: "you owe me 5 guilders" "this writ says i don't". "i never meant for my daughter to be chained to the post naked for all comers" "then why does this offer her ?" etc.
mircea_popescu: well see part of the problem is merchant law. so : there's two kinds of writs, one of which can be opposed to the author, which is to say if he later makes a claim, anyone with standing (like the guy he's making the claim against) can oppose the writ.
mircea_popescu: and there's a damned good reason you don't, nor is it a service you offer : the difficulty of "looking at the data, establish its validity" exceeds building the ai.
mircea_popescu: all i want to know from you if such a situation is discovered is if you did it or not.
mircea_popescu: if you construct the signing infrastructure, there's a river with a railway bridge. however, segments may be missing ; and this can't be known.
mircea_popescu: trinque the problem here is like so : if you don't sign the stuff, you have a river, which will have to be forded. people wanting to get across know what they're doing - fording a river.
mircea_popescu: which is how there exist these washpo that is a reputable source, qntra that is a spamsite etc.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform enemy already does this ; so does your gf. everyone you come into contact with is fabricating a fictional you from the whole cloth of their head.
mircea_popescu: there have to be layers. my hitting return is "this statement was made" ; my signing should be "this statement was made with a view of it being opposable to the maker".
mircea_popescu: i'm not about to give the wolf a falx on top of everything.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform and note that the only fact in your list of facts is my dying. which imparts some fact-flavour to the rest of the string.
mircea_popescu: trinque i don't think you did, but we ended up with a whole front here and since we're discussing it let's discuss altogether.
mircea_popescu: this notion that ratings encode some sort of single unified pointed scalar truth has got to die already. it's not only very stupid, it's actually in the way.
mircea_popescu: to A i shall say "and he doesn't snore" and to B i shall say "he's a patient sort"
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576528 << they have to. there is no "one" answer. suppose the case where i rate someone X as a 3 because i dunno, we go fishing. suppose A asks me about X because he's contemplating going hunting, and B asks me about X because he's contemplating playing chess.
☝︎ mircea_popescu: no whatever infrastructure development fund, i have nfi, the whole thing's vague as fake hair.
mircea_popescu: trinque facts don't encode anything. that's what it's like to be a fact - you may only be interpreted, but exist outside and above any meaning.
mircea_popescu: ie, when dealing with unquantifiable unknown risks, methodological approaches are costs with no benefit./
mircea_popescu: trinque i believe the correct pill to this would be to keep the moving sums small, rather than fucking the mechanism.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform nothing transforms the rng bits into fact. they were fact, from the beginning, owing to the absence of meaning.
mircea_popescu: trinque is this different from "you were tricked into making false payments by secret owner of all rsa keys" ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform no. and this confusion between fact and fiction driven by the engineering perspective that "oh it is a fact TO ME" eventually ends up with usg and the "fact" of "fake media"
mircea_popescu: trinque so basically, to understand this, the problem you are working against is this situation where you are tricked into making false payments by a secret owner of your hardware ?
mircea_popescu: a rating you mean ? but a rating isn't an opinion, it's an advertisement. much like an offer in a magazine is a tender not a deal.
mircea_popescu: trinque what do you mean by fucking up the db in that context as something else was being contemplated when i said it ?
mircea_popescu: because we've decided to live in the world as it is rather than wait for someone else (who ?) to make a better one
mircea_popescu: there's absolutely no valuable information that would be lost if you fucked up the db today and we had to re-do it. just inconvenience to a lot of live people, but it's of the nature of "tee hee i garbled everyone's shopping lists as found on the fridge" not of the "tee hee i burned all extant aramaic manuscripts".
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576515 << it is not a good thing in any sense. think for a moment : if the ratings are live, which is to say, they actually do stand up to their purpose of "if you try to eval x ask these people", then those people will re-advertise. if they do not, then they should have been deleted in the first place.
☝︎ mircea_popescu: yes i had the keys out. but to pee not to make johnny little brothers.
mircea_popescu: the old distinction between fact and fiction prevails. ratings are not facts.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform nothing prevents me from putting in ratings as deeds ; nor anyone else. yet few do.
mircea_popescu: this theoretical problem is evinced in practice by the expiration problem - what do you do about all the ratings i may have signed ? so you have rating for x at time t, what's this say ? is it correct or isn't it correct ?
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576521 << they are ?! why ? i have no intention for my rating of X to be opposable to me. it is information i provide free of charge and on an as-is basis, literally saying "if you're trying to eval X i may be able to help". it would be the height of impudence for y to demand something on the basis of "i have this here signed thing".
☝︎ mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576496 << this is a bad idea, for multiple reasons. one of them being that it requires to give sign capacity to the clients, which is deeply undesirable ; another being that it encourages a retarded notion/expectation of repudiability.
☝︎ mircea_popescu: not that it's bad for kids, though it does promote some tilt towards the tomboyish look in girls that i don't find welcome.
mircea_popescu: with the light. you can put a chick to sleep right now by covering its head. the brain is eye-powered like in frogs.
mircea_popescu: civilised people have artificial light, stay up longer.
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576455 << running the "oh, that wasn't a wedding, who goes out in the desert to have weddings (outside of weirdo californians) and there was no leftover food or musical instruments or anything)" side by side with the AP footage showing all the lively colored bedding and pots and pans and various bits of goatfucker musical instruments is quite the COIN exercise.
☝︎ mircea_popescu: how is a squire supposed to fatten into a sphere properly if there's no meal between lunch and dinner ?
☟︎ mircea_popescu: aaand we find teh english has no equivalent of ojina/užina wtf is this bs.
mircea_popescu waves. i shall write this short i woke up with and read all this!
mircea_popescu: "i got a bun in the oven, or maybe i'm just late, does ivan still drink ?"
mircea_popescu: the only possible end result of which is being fucked.
mircea_popescu: the focus moves from achievement to "we were physically together tapping keys for a time" i nthe exact same sense iranian women hang out together in the kitchen. "participative experience".
mircea_popescu: phf incidentally, to round the thing, let's compare the 90s compo with the 2010s hackathon. o, that's right, these lame kids come from schools with no grades! the concept of there being a winner, of choice and hierarchy is all but lost.
mircea_popescu: i can't say i ever used either that much to tell, but i did fuck around with art studio a lot as a 6 yo
mircea_popescu: place's been coming in a big way since the 1859 gold find put it on the map, and throughout this century and a half it never ammounted to more than high rents and jam tomorrow.
mircea_popescu: and for the record, this has been ongoing. in 1916 it was EXACTLY the same nonsense "oh, california is coming in a big way, let's move the theatrical company over".
mircea_popescu: myeah. essentially california didn't start sucking now, or last year, or last decade. intellectually speaking it was always nothing. it sucked in 1990 like it sucked in 1960 and 1930.