johnecheck

8 ms·

61.
by johnecheck 1y ago
I remember when I realized just how little host language code was needed to bootstrap a Forth. Before that I was making the same mistake. OP, I strongly recommend the book Threaded Interpreted Languages [1]. I had to read chapter 2 several
62.
by johnecheck 1y ago
Ah, but which assembly? If you just roll a simple VM in the host language, your instruction set becomes the assembly Forth integrates so well with. I'm assuming that's what they did in their C implementation.
63.
by johnecheck 1y ago
Indeed, labels aren't useless. But when a label means one thing to one person and a totally different thing to another, it actually becomes an impediment to communication and is best avoided.
64.
by johnecheck 1y ago
Apologies, I was mistaken. I'd confused the self-certifying bit with decentralization. did:plc relies on trusting a central server to accept all valid events and not allow users to rewrite their history.
65.
by johnecheck 1y ago
The structure of the atproto gives us the ability to ditch her and bluesky while keeping our data and connections. If your users aren't captive, why become the villain? They'll just leave.
66.
by johnecheck 1y ago
The userbase is not fully centralized. It's mostly centralized, but users who care can manage their own data independently of bluesky. While it's true that they have 'full' control over the protocol, they've stated
67.
by johnecheck 1y ago
did:web (DNS) is just one option for identity. did:plc is what you want, it's not reliant on ICANN or BlueSky. Any PDS should be able to resolve a did:web or did:plc. https://atproto.com/specs/did
68.
by johnecheck 1y ago
That's more or less what atproto is, except the indexer is called a relay and provides the data directly. Currently bluesky is providing their relay for free, but I don't believe there's any reason they couldn't make it
69.
by johnecheck 1y ago
The right platform will allow users to choose between any of the algorithms you described and more.
70.
by johnecheck 1y ago
I see! Thanks for the info.
71.
by johnecheck 1y ago
This is an argument for gating the free-for-all behind a setting technical users can find, not demanding 30% of revenue if a dev would like access to apple users. The security aspect is real, but this is really about maximizing profits by m
72.
by johnecheck 1y ago
I frequently say the same thing about the word Capitalism. (Communism too). They're second only to 'god' in terms of historical baggage. If you say 'I like Capitalism', a significant minority will hear 'I love
73.
by johnecheck 1y ago
> that shouldn't even be on the table I wish that were so.
74.
by johnecheck 1y ago
A trend indeed. You know what each of those stores charging 30% have in common? They each come bundled with the OS on your device and have massive advantages over any competing stores (if they even allowed them to exist). Since devices are
75.
by johnecheck 1y ago
Interesting, I hadn't known that silicon is itself a semiconductor before all the circuits are added. Am I correct in saying that the etching process transforms a single semiconductor into billions?
76.
by johnecheck 1y ago
A spreadsheet is a programming language and I will die on this hill.
77.
by johnecheck 1y ago
The 30% cut hurts every developer, not just the minority building bad games that make the world worse.
78.
by johnecheck 1y ago
You're right but also wrong. Flash is just semiconductors etched in a different pattern than logic, but you don't print on semiconductors. Semiconductors are 'printed' on wafers via photolithography.
79.
by johnecheck 1y ago
This is a debate over semantics, let's conclude by presenting our competing definitions. A blockchain is ledger shared between multiple computers. Entries in this ledger contain the cryptographic hash of the previous entry, creating an
80.
by johnecheck 1y ago
I don't know, you didn't provide any stats. Without that context, the total compensation of all employees isn't a terribly meaningful number when discussing disparity. My claim was that your argument isn't well supported
81.
by johnecheck 1y ago
If you measure 'profit' as 'how much does the net worth of our owners go up', stock buybacks make a lot of sense. This seems like a particularly terrible measure of success for everyone but those owners.
82.
by johnecheck 1y ago
No, large tech companies are not paying out tens of billions of dollars to the average worker. Did you mean that tens of billions of dollars are going to ALL the tech workers combined? True, but a single absolute number means little when th
83.
by johnecheck 1y ago
While it's definitely possible to train a model for that, 'very easy' is nonsense. Unless you've got some superintelligence hidden somewhere, you'd choose a neural net. To train, you need a large supply of LABELED d
84.
by johnecheck 1y ago
'There's so many cliffs around that not jumping off that one barely helps you'. I meeeeeannn... sure? I know that browser fingerprinting works quite well without, but custom headers are actually a game over in terms of not ge
85.
by johnecheck 1y ago
Sadly, touching the user-agent header more or less instantly makes you uniquely identifiable. Browser fingerprinting works best against people with unique headers. There's probably millions of people using an untouched safari on iPhone
86.
by johnecheck 1y ago
You misunderstand. The analogy wouldn't be Napster with networking code disabled. The analogy is Napster on a LAN. Only those on the LAN can access it so it's not open to the world, but nonetheless you've still got a p2p file
87.
by johnecheck 1y ago
Sure, blockchain development has always been deeply tied to ideas of open membership and participation. I like those ideas too. But that's a poor definition of a blockchain. A blockchain is merely a distributed ledger with certain prop
88.
by johnecheck 1y ago
This is very similar to the 'machines will do all the work, we'll just get to be artists and philosophers' idea. It sounds nice. But to have that, you need resources. Whoever controls the resources will get to decide whether
89.
by johnecheck 1y ago
There are a number of reasons you might not be able to. Most likely? It's ridiculously expensive and you're poor.
90.
by johnecheck 1y ago
Ah, I hadn't considered that last bit. That is indeed telling. The status quo is broken. It's a wobbling top. It's no secret; for all they benefit from it, most CEOs know that this isn't sustainable . For better or for

More ›