jaennaet
@jaennaet@sopuli.xyz
- Comment on 5 days ago:
Zero-knowledge proofs can be done without requiring us to trust anyone. That is what I have been saying, but it keeps seeming to be skipped over.
I wasn’t ignoring your had-wavy “ZK proofs will solve this”; I’m saying that you still have to trust the fact that whatever magical ZK system you have has been implemented correctly and doesn’t leak any information at any point (either on purpose or accidentally).
Unless you’re one of the ~hundreds of people who actually understand the mathematics behind ZK proofs, you won’t be able to do that, and you’ll just have to trust whoever’s in charge of the system when they say “trust me it works” – especially if it’s not 100% open source. Even if it was open source, you’d still have to trust the fact that what was deployed is actually what was published.
- Comment on 1 week ago:
We stopped selling alcohol and cigarettes unless you dox yourself to shady gas stations and stores.
Both of which famously keep databases of everyone’s IDs, and require transmitting your ID over who-knows-what network to who-knows-where.
Oh, wait, no they don’t.
Again, if done correctly, it can be done privately and securely. I am not advocating that we give our ID to every sketchy internet site. I am advocating for a widespread secure and standardized solution.
Right, and such a solution will ultimately just require everyone to trust the fact that it’s been “done privately and securely”
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 week ago:
There’s no guarantee that an evolutionary search process will lead to a globally optimal solution. It’s the same thing with evolutionary algorithms in computing
- Comment on Kiki a bouba 1 week ago:
manul
- Comment on wypipo 1 week ago:
The joke was the title combined with the picture
- Comment on Dogs need love too 1 week ago:
- Submitted 1 week ago to science_memes@mander.xyz | 5 comments
- Submitted 1 week ago to [deleted] | 2 comments
- Comment on wypipo 1 week ago:
@javiwhite@feddit.uk had it right, and also it’s specifically a derogatory term; the Oxford English Dictionary gives the definition “US English derogatory a contemptuous term for a white person, especially an impoverished white person living in the southern US. Also called poor white”
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to [deleted] | 16 comments
- Comment on Mozilla under fire for Firefox AI "bloat" that blows up CPU and drains battery 2 weeks ago:
“I don’t do X, that means nobody does X”
- Comment on Mozilla under fire for Firefox AI "bloat" that blows up CPU and drains battery 2 weeks ago:
Are we pretending that lots and lots of people aren’t incredibly horny for AI right now?
- Comment on I'm doing my part! 5 weeks ago:
I had to check, and it looks like at least as far as plastic goes, in Finland it’s either sent to two domestic recycling plants, and everything they can’t handle is shipped to Sweden’s Site Zero in Motala (dunno where they go from there.)
But yeah, something like using shredded plastic for road surfacing definitely isn’t what I’d call a sensible way to recycle the material. It’s just adding an extra step before getting to “microplastic endocrine disruptors EVERYWHERE”
- Comment on I'm doing my part! 5 weeks ago:
the recycling system is broken and often just a complete lie in many places in the world.
In many places in the world, or mainly the US? I keep seeing this claim repeated but usually any proof is just about the US
- Comment on Reality vs Fantasy 1 month ago:
Fun English facts: “apron” used to be “napron”, but “a napron” was eventually incorrectly split into “an apron”. Same with “adder” which used to be “naddre”, and “umpire” which was “noumpere”
- Comment on Realized 99% of all my chargers are USB-C. This can only mean one thing. New USB bout to drop! 1 month ago:
It’s a weird hill to die on
But at least they’re dead
- Comment on Realized 99% of all my chargers are USB-C. This can only mean one thing. New USB bout to drop! 1 month ago:
And at least there’s now one(ish) standard instead of N+1
