This was just pre-knowledge for the real argument in Alcibiades and Socrates? Because this did not confound expectations, simply established a kind of perceived imbalance in love?

I thought things are content-addressed. Having a string name is strange.

Why there is no perms in the Delegating Event and are in Delegated Event? I'd expect it to be the other way around.

Why? Witnesses can gossip with each other acks about events they learned from the controller.

As mentioned further.

Then why have it?

It's cool, I guess. But then leaves one wonder, are they compatible? How to tell? There should be a kind of manifest then that maps v4 to "playing well together" granular vs.

This much like Chronofold's subjective logs.

Do the docs need to be shared in full? The only thing we need is delta ops.

empty meaning, noop \ self?

I guess any s has such empty transition for it.

Huuh?

S3 -> S2 ?

What does * mean?

What stops a culprit to send off-group a message that is not his own? We can only achieve the "culprit detection" by addressing and signing every message we send to A. This is a lot of re-signing. And we won't have a convergent DAG.

Perhaps better to attach a new IP address to a message once it does change. What's the point in telling over-and-over the same IP?

Strange that you need to have a friend-path in order to use r's coins. I'd expect r to accept&approve a message from me, given I hold his coin (which he can see from my message).

Why have signed coins?

Makes it possible to track which coins been equivocated.

But what's the use for it?

What's the difference between "you can't use these specific coins as they were equivocatedly used already" and "you can't use these opaque coins, as they are in equivocation"?

Later, at least, may succed given equivocation issuer have enough balance for both. Although then there's no point in creating equivocation in the first place. So nevermind, won't happen, except by silly equivocators.

Again, this can be derived out of DAG. Seems redundant.

It would somewhat spare computation, as one can check equivocation by following a pointer, but then he would need to ensure that both equivocated blocks are observed by a self-parent chain of the "DISAPPROVE" issuer.

What's the point of explicit approvals if it can be derived out of DAG?

It won't spare computation, as one would still need to go through DAG and ensure payment's balanced and equivocation-free. Can't trust the issuer of "APPROVE".

Great, so r-balance of p is derived by the history of ops regarding r. So no need for p to calculate it and add to every op, would be redundant. Not sure the derivation is the proposed protocol though.

Why do coins need to be signed?

Why does he need to explicitly accept? Can't it be done by default? Can he reject?

Why does he need to approve? It is a mean of equivocation detection. But it requires all coins going through its creator. Incurring latency and possible indefinete out-of-service as creator goes offline.

Why is it not optional? Like we can exchange coins with recepient directly, and he may come to redeem it later, if he wishes, detecting eqiuvocation at that point.

Some services, that offer say a cup of coffee, would be willing to take the risk of loosing $5 of value on to-be-detected equivocations. Since equivocators will be punished severily that does not worth 5$ of value. So they can be rest assured that nobody's gonna do that.

Now this example holds if coffee provider prices in currency other than its own, say bank's.

And banks are generally online. But still. Why force it? Let them do a round-trip to currency owner at their choice, a tradeoff that's up to them.

Why does red agent need to issue pay to itself?

What red agents holds after he transferred 1 black coin can be derived from history his ops.

We can't trust what he issues, he may issue to self 1000 black coins. So we'd need to go check history whether he computed it right.

But then again, if we need to do that, why issue an explicit payment to self?

Pricing in your own coins means personal coins may not match in value behind them. One may offer a cup of coffee for 1 coin, another for 5. Simply exchanging 100 coins with each other would mean one'll get 1/5 of value from this exchange. So 1:5 exchange would be needed. But how to know that in advance?

Couldn't he spend less? I mean if he doesn't go below his minimal sustainability expenses, he can trade what's left.

The second supermajority is a set of messages that super-ratifies some message. But here we don't make use of super-ratification. Next leader may observe just one message that super-ratifies.

Didn't get it. I'd expect that all blocks created by by these guys would refer to their previous blocks. Here the definition seems to say that one guy needs to ref to another's guys blocks, which is not "mutual".

What does this mean?

What is meant by this?

What is this?

What is meant by this?

"generous interpretation" ... perhaps too generous?

They have these mixed up! (Which is understandable, because 401 is misnamed "Unauthorized but should be named "Unauthenticated")

Checking if authenticated (which, if it fails the check, should return 401 for authentication error) comes first,

and then checking if authorized (which, if it fails the check, should return 403 for authorization error)

See https://hyp.is/wRF7wHopEeynafOqKj81vw/stackoverflow.com/questions/3297048/403-forbidden-vs-401-unauthorized-http-responses

They have these mixed up! (Which is understandable, because 401 is misnamed "Unauthorized but should be named "Unauthenticated")

Checking if authenticated (which, if it fails the check, should return 401 for authentication error) comes first,

and then checking if authorized (which, if it fails the check, should return 403 for authorization error)

See for example https://www.loggly.com/blog/http-status-code-diagram/

They have these mixed up! (Which is understandable, because 401 is misnamed "Unauthorized but should be named "Unauthenticated")

Checking if authenticated (which, if it fails the check, should return 401 for authentication error) comes first,

and then checking if authorized (which, if it fails the check, should return 403 for authorization error)

See for example https://www.loggly.com/blog/http-status-code-diagram/

It depends what we mean by "incorrect"/damaged "credentials ("ticket")...

A. If they are invalid or incorrect in the sense that we can't authenticate them as anyone (as it sounds like you mean with "incorrect" or "damaged") (they're not a user in our database or the password doesn't match a user in our database), then you should actually use 401, meaning that the client can/should try (again) to authenticate with different credentials.

B. But if by "incorrect" you mean (as it sounds like you mean with "you cannot even go through the airport security: when they check your ticket, it will be refused") that the credentials were valid enough to authenticate you as someone (a user in our database), but that (known( user has insufficient credentials, then correct, it should be a 403 forbidden.

It's even easier to explain / think about if you just think of 401 as being used for any missing or failed authentication. See:

• https://hyp.is/3fuPiHooEeyZc5cn4Q1uXg/stackoverflow.com/questions/3297048/403-forbidden-vs-401-unauthorized-http-responses
• https://hyp.is/oxI0uHonEeyZYvdQFZIEUQ/stackoverflow.com/questions/3297048/403-forbidden-vs-401-unauthorized-http-responses
• https://hyp.is/pB2XuHomEeyax28Y6vxcOg/stackoverflow.com/questions/3297048/403-forbidden-vs-401-unauthorized-http-responses

Burton-Chellew, M. N., & West, S. A. (2021). Payoff-based learning best explains the rate of decline in cooperation across 237 public-goods games. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01107-7

Tested it out, didn't give me an output

don't quite get

Would this be a personification of a dream or an unnamed deity (like Morpheus) that puts this into Agamemnon's mind?

Consent for the publisher to "access their browser"? Hmm. The Web is a pull-based, client/server, request/response model, not a push model. So it seems odd to me to talk about a publisher needing consent to "access" the user's browser. It is the user's browser (user agent) that made the HTTP request to the publisher's web server. Doesn't the publisher have the right, then, to send a response containing whatever content they wish, since the user requested the content? If the client wishes to filter/block/exclude some of that content, it seems like they have that right, but it seems the responsibility for that is on the client side, not the server side.

Not that I like ads, but I wonder how much of these new policies are based on a misunderstanding of how web technologies actually work....

Maybe the distinction is that the publisher of whom you requested content may dynamically load content (ads) from 3rd parties that the user did not specifically request content from? That too is just how the web works, and it is the publisher who controls what other content to load from other domains/sources. But it still may be a worthwhile distinction...?

The writer introduces the article with a very detailed comparison between the man in the photo and the actual victims. Word usage: tags

Personally, I'm a bit confused as to how these visualizations are able to catch the entirety of the Kingdom Hearts game play. Is it that these are video snapshots of how long the gameplay takes, and that this is on an online interface to see the gameplay? I understand how this works for a singular image, but gameplay is difficult for me to understand.

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

I found the beginning of this section difficult to understand in terms of the validity of his statement. I found it interesting that one of Lewis' premises was posed in a rather hopeful manner. I think the way he stated that there is "some unified body of scientific theories" was unclear to me in how much he would be able to use evidence from this notion.

I have a couple questions concerning this last passage. First, it seems that we have to have one of two options. The first is to accept this view, with substantial credited backing, or, choose to believe that our natural sciences are greatly flawed and we have failed to account for this other stuff. Now, my question is, is there any evidence throughout history that this "other stuff" as ever existed? Or if there has ever been any evidence that suggests otherwise?

I am definitely intrigued and intimidated by this course so far. There is a lack of understanding on my part with regards to the use of the online platforms. I feel that I am slowly getting the hang of it now and I am very exited to become more familiarized with the online tools for this class. Judging from Professor Graham's website and the content of the first lecture, it seems that this course will provide me with a great opportunity to improve many skills that are currently underdeveloped and allow me to look at a very different perspective of history. I am excited for the experience ahead.

So she is saying that Derridean deconstruction, or differance, can allow us to reevaluate the concept of the rhetorical situation.... However, Biesecker spent so much time explaining differance that I didn't find a clear explanation for her take on "rhetorical situation." I remember her saying something to the effect of: "differance/deconstruction has an effect on the rhetorical situation" but I don't recall her actually explaining how/why. Can anyone clear this up for me? Did I miss something, or did she actually just not explain it?

what the heck was the point of the zucchini?