and I like the idea that since it was a process it looked kind of active and um and then it could be paired with a document that resembled it so our system was kind of a verb and a noun
Technologies from our community - CRDTs, sync engines, universal version control, and good old-fashioned open protocols and file formats - can give a nation more independence and control over its own critical software infrastructure.
You look under the underneath though at the code and it was just a horrible unmaintainable mess. But the fact that people could program the programs that they wanted was a a significant step forward as opposed to I'm going to write a thousandpage requirements document and then wait 8 years and not get what I want which was the alternative that we were offering at the at the time.
and you may now use the actual Inquisition record of you having gone through censorship as the document to prove that you and only you have the right to print the book and therefore you can sue people for plagiarizing it or printing an unauthorized edition. And so, the very first version of copyright is the Inquisition.
I believe that the path to success is best achieved by putting the best human intelligence together with the best artificial intelligence and that the way of thinking I am describing here is essential to understand and use in the new human/artificial intelligence era.
if a revoked user still wants to, say, vandalize a document, they can just backdate their edits, give it an earlier timestamp. So, relying on clocks is absolutely useless here because people can forge the timestamps from those clocks and thereby then potentially undermine the access control mechanism.
figuring out a document that is actually like sort of all the things that are not platitudes whereas like all the things where someone else like some other company would plausibly take the other side of and but that's but those are the real choices, right? Like if no one would take the other side, it's a platitude.
So no, UX doesn’t die; it metamorphoses. We’ll still craft humane experiences, but increasingly through policies, protocols, and orchestrations rather than panels and palettes.
What you need is interoperability. Interoperability can happen through a blockchain, it can happen through a database, it can happen through standards bodies with defining standards and protocols. And we've been doing it for hundreds of years since the railroads were standardized. And it's not something that totally requires a novel technological solution.
The book describing how and why empowered teams power the most best product companies like Tesla, Netflix, or Apple. My experience at Uber matches that of the book. My only regret is I could not read it earlier.
There is an algorithm called BM25 precisely for this, which is a more sophisticated version of TF-IDF. TF-IDF is term frequency times inverse document frequency, a very old-school information retrieval system that just works actually really well even today. And BM25 is a more sophisticated version of that, that is still beating most embeddings on ranking.
Or is it really that we’re building some super machine in a box that’s going to be smart and kill everybody? It’s not even a science fiction narrative. It’s a bad science fiction narrative. I just don’t think it’s actually accurate to any of the technologies we’re building or the way that we should be describing them.
Both the genome sequences of pandemic viruses and step-by-step protocols to make infectious samples from synthetic DNA are now freely available online.
I think time is a useful model, whether it exists or not. Right. Does quantum physics exist? Well, it doesn’t matter. It’s about whether it’s a useful model to describe reality.
Even under all the constraints and controls that I've been describing here, 90% of our drugs fail in the clinic: can you imagine the failure rate if we tried to go faster and noisier?
In terms of iOS apps, I use PDF Expert, which is a great PDF reader and annotator (using Apple Pencil), Notability as a virtual whiteboard (again with Apple Pencil), Google Docs for document editing, Google Calendar, and Gmail.
It's a text that's filled with humour, of a man describing a world that is unknown. And I suppose that's a theme for me, looking at different parts of the world that have important significance and value and yet get overlooked because we're always staring at our own reflection in the mirror.
Nothing about any of the protocols we’ve developed requires centralization; it’s entirely possible to build a federated Signal Protocol-based messenger, but I no longer believe that it is possible to build a competitive federated messenger at all.
As technologists, we can’t build an access system that only works for people of a certain citizenship, or with a particular morality, or only in the presence of a specified legal document.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.