59 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. The controller is responsible to promulgate a mutually consistent set of receipts, i.e. a suffi-cient agreement of size M ≥ M C .

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

      As mentioned further.

  2. May 2024
    1. This makes the DID functionally equivalent to a did:key value, and visually similar, except that a peer DID will have the numeric algorithm as a prefix, before the multibase encoded, multicodec-encoded public key

      Then why have it?

    1. All API endpoints within the specification are versioned individually. This means that /v3/sync (for example) can get deprecated in favour of /v4/sync without affecting /v3/profile at all. A server supporting /v4/sync would keep serving /v3/profile as it always has

      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.

  3. Apr 2024
    1. Another approach is to maintain all operations for a particular document version in anordered log, and to append new operations at the end when they are generated. To mergetwo document versions with logs 𝐿1 and 𝐿2 respectively, we scan over the operations in𝐿1, ignoring any operations that already exist in 𝐿2; any operations that do not exist in 𝐿2are applied to the 𝐿1 document and appended to 𝐿1 in the order they appear in 𝐿2.

      This much like Chronofold's subjective logs.

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

    1. empty if s = s′

      empty meaning, noop \ self?

      I guess any s has such empty transition for it.

    2. Also note that T and T f are not necessarydisjoint, for the same reason that even a broken clock shows the correct houronce in a while


    3. and σ32 :S3 → S3

      S3 -> S2 ?

    4. What does * mean?

    1. However, sinceevery block in GSN is signed, when one breaches privacy within the protocol the breach carriestheir signature so the culprit can be identified.

      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.

    2. Furthermore, each block sent includes the most recent IP address of the sender,allowing agents to keep track of their friend’s changing IP addresses.

      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?

    1. Every p-block with a payment in r-coins by a correct trader p ̸ = ris eventually approved or disapproved by an r-block [provided p and r are friends or have acommon friend in SG(B)]a.

      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).

    2. An r-block b that repays a redemption claim with comment (redeem, P ), P =[p1, p2, . . . , pk], k ≥ 1, has a payment in pi-coins, i ∈ [k], provided the balance of r does notinclude any pj -coins for any 1 ≤ j < i at the time of creating b, and has a payment in r-coins,r /∈ P , provided the balance of r does not include any P -coins at the time of creating b

      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.

    3. An r-block b with an empty payment and comment (disapprove, h′) pointsto an r-coin payment block b′, where h′ points to the reason for disapproval: To b′, if it isunbalanced, or to a block b′′ equivocating with b′

      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.

    4. An r-block b with an empty payment and comment approve points to balancedr-coin payments block b′, where b does not observe a block equivocating with b′

      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".

    5. Given a blocklace B and two agents p, r ∈ Π, the r-coins balance of p in B isthe sum of r-coins payments accepted by p in B minus the sum of r-coins payments issued by p in B.

      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.

    6. consisting of r-coins, which can be thought of as IOUs issued and signed by r

      Why do coins need to be signed?

    7. and the red agent acceptsthe payment, increasing its balance to 6 black coins.

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

    8. The black agent approves the payment

      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.

    9. decreasing its balance to 2 black coins

      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?

    10. eachpricing their goods and services in terms of their own personal coins. Next, assume that every two villagersexchange 100 personal coins with each other

      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?

    1. lest any tem-porary decline in personal productivity would result in theperson going broke

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

    1. Weshow that the blue leader is ratified by any subsequent cordial leader

      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.

    2. for any p, q ∈ P and anyp-block b ∈ B there is a q-block b′ ∈ B such that b′ ≻ b

      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".

  4. Dec 2023
  5. Jun 2023
    1. Don’t confuse Consent Mode with Additional Consent Mode, a feature that allows you to gather consent for Google ad partners that are not yet part of the Transparency and Consent Framework but are on Google’s Ad Tech Providers (ATP) list.
  6. Nov 2022
    1. Zombie processes should not be confused with orphan processes: an orphan process is a process that is still executing, but whose parent has died. When the parent dies, the orphaned child process is adopted by init (process ID 1). When orphan processes die, they do not remain as zombie processes; instead, they are waited on by init.
  7. Aug 2022
  8. Jun 2022
  9. Jan 2022
    1. Next, let’s say that your ticket is correct (so you made through security just fine!) and the gate number in your ticket says “Gate 24” but you walk to Gate 27. The attendant cannot authorize you to go through that gate because it’s not the right gate for your ticket.

      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

    2. In other words, an “incorrect ticket” is similar to messing up your credentials: wrong username and/or password and you receive back a 403 Forbidden. Using the correct credentials but trying to access a resource that is not allowed for those credentials returns you a 401 Unauthorized.

      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/

    3. You can also think that 403 happens before 401, despite the natural number order: you will not receive a 401 until you resolve a 403.

      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/

    4. If the ticket is incorrect or damaged, you cannot even go through the airport security: when they check your ticket, it will be refused. You are Forbidden to enter the boarding area of the airport.

      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:

  10. Jul 2021
  11. May 2021
  12. Apr 2021
    1. Dry humor is a delivery technique. As such, it shouldn't be confused with specific types of humor or with sarcasm. Sarcasm is delivered without humor because it's generally not funny but intended to mock or convey contempt. Dry humor pertains to something funny.
    1. Q-4: T/F: It is necessary to have an else statement after an if statement? (Hint: Test it out in the code above)

      Tested it out, didn't give me an output

    1. false == 0 and true = !false i.e. anything that is not zero and can be converted to a Boolean is not false, thus it must be true.

      don't quite get

  13. Mar 2021
    1. I don't get it. Can someone please explain? I've upgraded my Rails project to Sprockets 4, just to get source maps in production. Instead I got sourcemaps in development?
  14. Jan 2021
  15. Sep 2020
    1. Calling the Dream,

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

  16. Jul 2020
    1. The IAB Transparency and Consent Framework supports both Server-specific consent and Global consent. The former is given by the consumer to a Publisher or Vendor to access their browser and/or perform the requested processing purposes where a Publisher or vendor requires consent for their site

      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...?

  17. May 2020
    1. If we already have a shared ssh key to push things up from the server to Gitlab, why do we need to do all this just to get Gitlab to send commands for our server to run?
  18. Mar 2020
    1. Well, the checkbox type has nothing to do with AI, but I’ve read that the type where you have to select “Which picture is …” does collect data to train AIs. It seems dear Dave is confusing between the 2 types.
  19. Sep 2019
    1. The writer introduces the article with a very detailed comparison between the man in the photo and the actual victims. Word usage: tags

  20. Feb 2019
    1. Visualization of "Kingdom Hearts"

      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.

  21. May 2018
    1. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just hit its highest level in 800,000 years and scientists predict deadly consequences

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

      evaluation card

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

  22. Jan 2018
    1. My second premise is the plausible hypothesis that there is some unified body of scientific theories, of the sort we now accept, which together provide a true and exhaustive account of all physi- cal phenomena

      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.

    2. I rely on Oppenheim and Putnam for a detailed exposition of the hypothesis that we may hope to find such a unified physicalistic body of scientific theory and for a presentation of evidence that the hypothesis is credible.

      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.

  23. Apr 2017
    1. Derrideandeconstructiondoesnotmerelyhelprhetoricalcriticsanalysetexts,inaddition,itpromotesarigorousreevaluationandrebuild-ingoftheconcept-metaphor"rhetoricalsituation"thatdrivesanddelimitsmuchcontemporarycriticalpracticeinthisfield.

      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?

  24. Sep 2015
  25. Aug 2015
    1. In order to avoid the confused deputy problem, asubject must be careful to maintain the associationbetween each authority and its intended purpose. Using the key analogy, one could imagine immediatelyattaching a label to each key upon receiving it, wherethe label describes the purpose for which the key is tobe used. In order to know the purpose for a key, thesubject must understand the context in which the key is received; for example, labelling is not possible if keysmagically appear on the key ring without the subject’sknowledge.
    2. Even if one can distinguish the keys, decidingto try all available keys puts one at risk of becoming aconfused deputy.