VoxelVexillologist
πΊπΈ Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
How do you know the NSA SPLC didn't pre-register themotte.org, and the pass all your queries on to what you think is the real site while logging all your traffic? Or that the block chain you see is the real one and not swapped out by your ISP with fake certs?
The PKI system we have is flawed, but you generally start with certificates delivered out-of-band (even if you use Chrome, you downloaded that with TLS in Edge, for example) that would loudly fail if your ISP tries this. Doing everything in-band is a "turtles all the way down" problem.
How do you trust your counterparty to keep your conversation private without knowing they are who you think they are, and not a leaky proxy?
If you're that concerned about censorship, why use TLS at all? It makes sense if you're concerned about privacy -- assuming your counterparty's certs are actually secured -- but then you also want to make sure your counterparty is who they say they are so you don't leak messages to the wrong parties.
There is a very real privacy-censorship tradeoff here that is inherent in any indirect trust scheme: unless you're trading RSA keys out-of-band with your servers (not bad if you can), the PKI problem isn't really escapable. Web of trust never worked as an alternative. Any centralized solution there begets censorship.
Is what you want "the certificate shows this server verifiably is run by the owner of the domain (or an approved proxy)?" That's not all the current regime is doing: there is a nonzero amount of "and is an upright business interest" there that crypto has well-known issues with. How would you revoke or reject certs from malware hosts? Even if LetsEncrypt isn't checking site contents, the browser vendors are still doing so, functionally replicating the original centralized PKI complaints.
Imagine if you will that data centers have been built in some old industrial area that regular industry has left.
"Replace shuttered Rust Belt factories with new data centers" has IMO a bit of a nice-sounding vibe to it. Less clear if the infrastructure would be what you want -- less a railyard and more a substation. The telecom connections are probably the easy part. But I don't live in the Rust Belt, so it's not me you'd need to sell on the idea. The "and you have to clean up the Superfund site" is probably a sticking point, too.
jury trials are, like democracy, not actually such a hot feature of enlightenment liberalism
The classic line here is the "democracy is the worst form of government, except for those other ones that have been tried." I'd be willing to express a similar sentiment for jury trials: have you seen what happens when judges alone get to make decisions? Also the American system at least is a right of the defending party to choose a jury trial, but there are other options available (bench trials).
Even benevolent dictatorship has the successor problem pop up often. Frankly, I'd express similar feelings about public discussion and debate as a consensus-truth-seeking method, but that one isn't, AFAIK, quite as well-documented.
There of course is an obvious solution to this, but I am not sure we're allowed yet to say it aloud.
This does seem to be the market the SMR folks were expecting. I hope it works out for them.
But even solar would be a start: it's not like cloud providers don't have expertise in dynamic billing rates. "Inference is cheaper when it's sunny in Nevada" is, uh, fine actually if most of your market is Bay Area tech bros during business hours. The "Claude is slow at certain hours" claims already exist. Maybe there is a market for "run this at some point tonight", too.
IIRC not all US government-issued certificates are recognized by the default on the listed browsers. At least, I've run into SSL warnings from them before that indicated as such in the past. The reverse you hope would be true too: important systems probably shouldn't need to trust foreign CAs for just any sites.
Also, I think Firefox on most platforms (Windows, most notably) trusts the OS's CA list: Microsoft probably has more sway than Mozilla. The one time I can think of this power was used, it was against Symantec for what seemed at the time (2018) quite reasonable reasons.
And Iβm not sure if you realize this, but increasing nameplate capacity 30% in 2 decades is absolutely awful.
That's fair, although IIRC per-capita consumption has declined (mostly through improvements in efficiency --- lighting, HVAC efficiency, better insulation, etc), so it's not quite as dire as it sounds.
whatever the American equivalent of Sodexo is,
Sodexo exists in the US. There might be others, though.
I think Abbott is at least partially swaying with the political winds here, but ERCOT's 100% increase in the last two decades pales in comparison to their forecast of 300% growth in the next 6 years. I think there are probably legitimate questions of capacity buildout at much higher rates than baseline, and "not committing to anything further" doesn't sound entirely foolish.
On the third (gripping) hand, I really question the hyperscaler economic case where they're able to pay N times the current price for huge amounts of energy, but the proles will still have enough money to pay them for AI services and for utilities. I don't know about everyone else, but "paying to chat with Claude/Gemini/ChatGPT" falls pretty low on Maslow's heirarchy of needs for me, well behind "keep the lights on and HVAC going". Even if they expect B2B to pay the bills, consumers are still an important part (ultimately, the endpoint) of the economy: it can't be B2B all the way down. Models are getting more efficient and I somewhat expect that quite a few use cases need less hardware than currently forecast.
This feels somewhat constrained to the local regulatory environment. We can just make investments in the grid faster. In the last two decades, total US nameplate capacity is up 20-30%, while ERCOT (Texas) is up over 100%. They don't want you to know this, but you can just build things: Texas is more friendly to renewables than California these days!
I lean towards supporting vigilante justice only in cases where the vigilante then turns themselves in and pleads guilty to a hostile court.
"Why, Gary? Gary, why?"
Honestly as a case I have mixed feelings about it, but I'm not convinced Gary was completely in the wrong.
Notionally, if we build out the grid as if usage will double, if they don't we can expect prices to fall. This would among other things be otherwise convenient for environmentalists, because much of the added power (certainly the cheapest marginally) will be solar/wind, and we need a bigger grid to support EVs and heat pumps, and cheaper power makes both more attractive.
Yeah, I realized after writing this that the server racks at work, which are air cooled, probably count as "open loop" here because the large site HVAC (for offices and equipment) has a cooling tower.
if these cooling loops could use gray water or something similar
Is anyone in the data center space running open-loop cooling? Otherwise they're just using the same water round and round. It looks like it is used some places, but we could easily be adding incentives or requirements for closed loop (air of ground source) cooling and battery-backed solar on rooftops instead of outright bans.
I've been toying with the idea of working out whether faithfulness to the source material is correlated with quality of the end product.
There are quite a few movies that are usually considered to be better than the books on which they were based. Unfortunately, most of the classic examples here (Jaws, The Godfather, Fight Club, Forrest Gump) I haven't read. Not to mention that the order you're exposed to them could matter.
I have seen that claim for Jurassic Park, but I'll say I quite like both.
Is "money" really that different between France and the UK? Per capita GDP is not terribly different (UK wins slightly), and I thought living standards were quite similar. But I'll admit I haven't been to either recently.
major tourist centers
Anecdotally, many places with lots of tourism have locals that really dislike tourists. Even when tourism indirectly pays the bills.
the system HAS to make a binary determination that either makes the person completely irresponsible or completely responsible
Sure, the current system does. But as philosophers here, we could muse about alternatives. What about a fractional responsibility regime?
He justified his skepticism towards the medication by mentioning one anecdote of my younger brother taking Concerta with no discernible effects, saying that he'd rather not take any mind-altering chemicals as his output would then not be entirely his own doing.
Are you sure skepticism of stimulants to treat ADHD is completely unwarranted? Sure, the ranks of skeptics include Scientology and RFK, but even The New York Times has published such opinions relatively recently [1] [2]. I'm not going to call myself a complete skeptic here --- I know people for whom the medications seem to work well --- but the diagnosis criteria are really a spectrum, and the rates at which we're prescribing these drugs (23 percent of 17-year-old American boys!) is concerning with respect to how we've pathologized cases that really can't be that far from the median, and the drugs have very real side effects. To the extent that they're performance-enhancing for most people, there is a real question of fairness and applicability, but I won't claim to know enough to have a strong opinion about that here. See also the fraction of high-achieving "mentally disabled" students at top-tier universities demanding special accommodations.
Medication might well work for you. I'm not a doctor, and I'm definitely not your doctor, but I would recommend a little sympathy for differing views here. There might well be other reasons to cut off contact, but IMO "ADHD skepticism" seems, alone, well below that bar.
Shortly before Trump came down the escalator, America was at less risk of a race war than at any time since the Monroe administration, and possibly since the founding.
The escalator (June 2015) was less than a year after the first Ferguson riots (which spanned several dates, the last of which was after the escalator). I would agree that race relations probably reached their best point during the early years of the Obama administration, but there was a demonstrable slope toward weaponizing it from as early as the White House Beer Summit (6 months into office). I think many people expected better improvements under Obama's leadership (I'm not going to say those expectations were, in hindsight, realistic), and more than a few voters soured on the idea in both directions.
Before mass migration we could functionally ignore HBD and be nice and get along because the country was 87% white
I'm not going to say you're fully wrong here, but history suggests that the 87% of what is currently considered "white" did not self-identify at the time as homogeneous. The largest single lynching in US history was of Italians (and why we celebrate Columbus Day). And they're hardly the only such group.
The perceived unity of the mid-twentieth century seems IMO more a product of the trauma-bonding of the wars, the looming Cold War threat to unite against, and mass-market broadcast culture. TV, radio, and print media all existed, but were restricted to scales that gate kept access and enforced some degree of "same screen".
Epstein seems an interesting comparison, because he also killed himself [citation needed], doubtlessly because of, at least in part, a bunch of negative press coverage. Surely if we need these sorts of protections for plagiarizing, fabulist sociology professors, we also need them for pedophile financier socialites: think of how much blood is on those journalist's hands, too!
- Prev
- Next

I'm not going to say your approach is crazy, but it isn't quite the same threat model the typical PKI infrastructure was intended to secure. You probably have more network connections at hand than was envisioned 30 years ago.
But how do you know you got the "real" bitcoin chain? Is each party resolving it separately, or are you keeping DNS servers (those have been difficult-to-authenticate, but proposed solutions rely on those darn CAs again)? Because you know the time and expect a rough block number? Secure time transfer is one of the classic difficult cryptographic problems. There are solutions, but the classical ones rely on pre-trusted servers (CAs!) and local trusted randomness. Using the cell network or GPS wasn't an option at the time, and even today there are real concerns about those (fake base stations!). And injecting bad notions of time is also a classic attack vector for using broken or revoked credentials.
In practice, I'm not sure you'd be wrong to trust a consensus time from multiple mechanisms, but that sort of thing is a very different model than the classical PKI exists to secure.
More options
Context Copy link