Standard Ebooks has it too: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/p-t-barnum/the-art-of-mone...

It's like this with a lot of things now. For example, Nix's learning curve used to be a huge barrier to entry. Now with LLMs, I'm using nix-darwin and home-manager for dotfiles, package management, and have individual flakes in all of my projects for cryptographically reproducible builds!

Nit: there’s nothing “cryptographic” about reproducible builds.

“Reproducible build” already usually implies bit-by-bit reproducibility.

“The reproducibility is cryptographically verifiable with hashes“ would be the full sentence, but it’s a mouthful.

Build reproducibility checks usually use bitwise comparison, not hash comparison.

The Reproducible Builds project also wrote diffoscope, which goes quite far with helping identify where differences occur and how to fix them.

https://reproducible-builds.org/ https://diffoscope.org/ https://try.diffoscope.org/

Let’s say, for the positive case, hash comparison is significantly faster.

I feel like that is quite unlikely. Both the hash and bitwise comparisons read both files in both cases. In the not-equal case the hash reads the entirety of both files, so its slower than a start-to-end bitwise comparison, which exits at the first not-equal bit. In the equal case, both read the entirety of both files. Various other bitwise strategies can be faster than start-to-end, rdfind for example checks the start of the file first, then the end, then the rest of the file.

I think we’re not talking about the same scenario. I’m talking about the case where at least one hash has already been calculated.

yes, but it's still not cryptological, it's just verification using hashes.

The hash being cryptographically secure is significant. In contrast, you could use (for example) md5 to non-cryptographically verify that the full process matched.

Sorry, the point I was making is that this isn't cryptography- it's the properties of a cryptographic hash (hard to spoof) that are useful. I don't think any verified build program uses the hash to encrypt data at any point. If I'm wrong on this point, that's fine, but please include a link.

Sure, "verified in a cryptographically secure manner" is technically not equivalent to "cryptographically verified" but the response "it's not cryptographic" is rather ambiguous at best given that it is, in fact, a cryptographically secure manner of verification. The key observation here being that an algorithm or process being "cryptographically secure" does not mean that it is "cryptographic" in nature (ie implements or uses cryptography).

I meant with Nix you're comparing hashes. With Docker, you're using pinned versions

i thought it mainly implied architectural/hardware compatibility and deterministic output

Nix mostly does not guarantee deterministic output. It rather guarantees deterministic inputs, and then sandboxes the system to inhibit the build from accessing the outside world.

Deterministic inputs do not always imply deterministic outputs.

Indeed, the Reproducible Builds community is working on fixing non-deterministic build output https://reproducible-builds.org/

Nix is also great at work. You keep the server nix code in the same repo and OpenCode can just change and test server config.

At then end they briefly mentioned how they started a service to post-train LLMs on producing more human, less formulaic-obviously-AI text.

The difference is that the voice in the video is a natural, human voice. It's the robotic sounding voices that always pronounce the same letters the exact same way (mostly the Eloquence family of voices) that enable blind people to listen at superhuman speeds. You can't listen to a real voice that fast.

Source can be anything with the original text, but, more often than not, ends up being PG.

It takes people years to learn how to write a good patent. If you gave your lawyer your attempt at writing your own patent, they might use the info to understand what you want (you're right about that), but a good lawyer would probably just start from scratch.

Imagine you're a contractor. You have a client who knows nothing about software development that wants you to write some software for them. They give you some code they generated with an LLM to get you started. Would you use the code or start over?

What card games do you play? Do you have any recommendations?

My main card game lately has been the Legendary system of games, in particular the Marvel version (although I did just order the James Bond version this morning too after playing the app version this past week). I like to play it with two players and alternate hands, but you can play it solo too.

Another one I like to play is Ashes, which has solo enemies you can play against. It's entry point nowadays is called Ashes Ascendancy.

And I play a lot of cooperative card games by the publisher Fantasy Flight Games, namely Marvel Champions, Lord of the Rings - The Card Game, and Arkham Horror - The Card Game. Lord of the Rings is starting to go out of print, and the older content for the other two is out of print, but the other two are still coming out with new content (and I have all the old stuff so I can still play them).

All of these have a ton of content with them, so I can play a bunch of games and not get bored of them. I've played each of them over 50 times, and some as many as 150 times, and yet there's still plenty I haven't played for each of them.

Can confirm. I've been using Mercury for three years now for my LLC. Everything is just so smooth.

The way I see it:

- Water on Mars: confirmed 2004 - Organic molecules on Mars: confirmed 2018 - Complex organic molecules (e.g., DNA precursors) on Mars: 2026

We now know for certain that it is possible for complex organic molecules to be preserved for ~3.5 billion years on the Martian surface.

The big question everyone wants to know is if life ever existed on Mars. Now we know that it's possible for that question to be answer, since we have confirmation of complex organic molecules actually being preserved.

This legitimizes future missions/spending on life searching missions to the Martian surface.

>- Water on Mars: confirmed 2004 - Organic molecules on Mars: confirmed 2018 - Complex organic molecules (e.g., DNA precursors) on Mars: 2026

This. It's been an incredibly steady march from "dead space rock" to "life".

It would be nice to prove or disprove the Viking gas experiments while some of the people who worked on that stuff are still alive.

> This legitimizes future missions/spending on life searching missions to the Martian surface.

How about spending money to get clean drinking water to the whole humanity (and other living creatures) here on earth first?

Phaedo != Phaedrus. One is the "writing" one, the other one is, well, about Socrates' execution (also extremely good dialogue!).

The one at issue:

https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/plato/dialogues/benjamin-j...

The public domain translations are pretty old either way. John Cooper's big book is probably still the best but im out of the game these days.

AI guys would probably love this if any of them still have the patience to read/comprehend something very challenging. Probably one of the more famous essays on the Phaedrus dialogue. Its the first long essay of this book:

https://xenopraxis.net/readings/derrida_dissemination.pdf

Roughly: Plato's subordination of writing in this text is symptomatic of a broader kind of `logocentrism` throughout all of western canonical philosophy. Derrida argues the idea of the "externality" of writing compared to speech/logos is not justified by anything, and in fact everything (language, thought) is more like a kind "writing."