asdvxgxasjab

Extending Bostrom's analysis, it would seem likely that there would have been millions of simulations before us. It seems statistically unlikely none of them would've discovered they were being simulated if we end up being able to discover it. So would they not have repaired the issue? Why waste the resources to conduct another simulation when you know there is a loophole in its detectability?

I use it all the time indirectly when using a map or working with JSON. I don't find it all that messy to work with. If you're talking about type assertions, I don't use them all that much but they do come up. It doesn't require much boilerplate or special handling. If the assertion fails I return an error like I do everywhere else.

Curious about your use cases for generics. I write a lot of Go and don't often find myself missing generics. I also used to write a good deal of C++ and didn't find myself often needing templates either.

They aggregate the signatures but the proofs of identity exist on disparate publicly viewable sites/applications. They commit the state of the signature chain on the public blockchain. So I wouldn't call it completely "centralized"/trusted where you're blindly trusting their SQL database is correct but not "perfectly" decentralized/trustless either.

Not at the moment but this is a good idea. Is there a preferred docs format/tool people like right now?

I want to continue to work on the code. Specifically improving the peer protocol.

I've also had someone reach out with me with interest in developing a Flutter/Dart wallet for iOS/Android. So that will be cool if that happens.

Other than that it's largely out of my hands :)