nwah1

Simplifying and composing these proofs with other proofs should probably be the next goal. And formalizing within other computational proof paradigms.

So, a very inefficient database with massive footguns.

Then all software moats become shallow

There was some talk on here during Covid about the feasibility of making all structures up to BSL4 standards. Seems kind of nuts, but it would certainly contain a lot of biosafety threats. With AI it now seems borderline urgent.

This narrative is largely untrue. Scandinavia started to prosper only after they liberalized. Of course, there is a big difference between intelligent redistributionism which respects and leverages market forces, and the kind of socialists who implement rent control and government-run grocery stores.

Redistribution that enhances production rather than stifling it. Which provides justice rather than creating injustice. A great idea to bury under dust for centuries.

I'm sure we will. And, like with mutations, the default assumption for a random change isn't very good. In this case, the historical record points to worse-than-random outcomes.

They don't use ternary quantization. But, they could, if they wanted.

In simpler terms, the SRAM density improved by 2.9% (according to ChatGPT). Which is better than it sounds, because SRAM had reached a wall, in terms of density gains, and, chips can be dominated by SRAM in terms of surface area, so this can mean a lot more room for logic, even though that is also getting considerably denser.

Given that they paused signups for their 20x Max plan, your assessment seems overoptimistic.

Their new Broadcom chips seem cool, and they had a nice model release with Astra. But, that doesn't mean they've solved the profitability question during an era of rapidfire open-weight model releases, extreme memory shortages, and intense political pushback.

A practical solution for the here and now.

Seems like the next evolution for memory-safety will be in the hardware, with CHERI.

Language-level memory-safety is all fine and good, if you can afford the rewrite. But, you still have to trust the software supply chain (the compiler, build server, etc).

However, there's a third and broader category called Proof Carrying Code, which could be used to guarantee all kinds of security properties of binaries, including memory-safety in a way that requires no supply chain trust.

Seems like language-level and PCC safety guarantees are the kind of thing that AI agents will make much more practical. With AI hacking, this only gets more important. They've already started trying to rewrite everything in Rust, but PCC and CHERI go further.

Redesigning the entire OS stack around zero virtual memory, and purely static allocation, seems like a direction that will need to be done. CHERI makes that much easier.

Given the state of cybersecurity, the car goes wherever anyone with sufficient motivation wants it to go. Including into pedestrians. And, such a scenario could happen at the scale of a botnet swarm. In other words, hundreds of thousands of vehicles could be simultaneously hijacked.

Underrated comment.

Also, Chromebooks.

CHERI seems to accomplish much of what Fil-C does, in-hardware. And removes some of the trust from the entire build toolchains in your entire supply chain, because memory-unsafety cannot be stealthily inserted.

Feels like a human-authored outline that was run through AI to make it into an article.

Yea, but if humans went extinct tomorrow, very little human artifacts would remain after millions of years. Indeed, most would be gone well before that. How much stuff from the 18th century still remains, in percentage terms?

And it wasn't just laziness that made them drag their feet. They actively fear the web as a platform, and very much want everyone to do everything through their app stores, using their own macOS/iOS-exclusive proprietary SDKs... which also means developers themselves needing to acquire a Mac with XCode, and a Developer subscription.

Yes, exciting stuff.

Not to mention the gene-therapy version of the same PCSK9 inhibition pathway called VERVE-102 which Eli Lilly is putting through human trials as we speak.

I imagine that stacking the LP(a) antisense therapy with a PCSK9 inhibitor, and/or a statin or Nexlizet would probably lower odds of heart disease death by two to three orders of magnitude. But I guess there isn't solid mortality data to say for sure.

For context, that revenue was $18.67 billion in 2025, with a net loss of $4.94 billion.

And we must remember that 6G is in the final stages of development, which has peak speeds of 1 Tbps.

Just because someone has a high net worth does not mean they are not trying to scam people, and it is good to be on the lookout for that.

Every human being is self-interested, at least to some degree. So, it is perfectly expected that he seeks money, fame, status, power, sex, etc.

But he doesn't seem to exhibit these to an abnormal degree, and in any event, you can just evaluate his claims based on evidence and logic and they either succeed or fail.

Just because the Wright Brothers were selling airplanes doesn't mean that they didn't fly.

That was true up until generative AI. Now, we have a new problem of high-definition fakes being easy to produce.

Look up the lifestyle of Hugo Chavez's daughter, or the family of Tareck El Aissami, or the Narconephews affair, or the Cartel of the Suns.

nice, I was just thinking that they needed a very slow database.

A lot of founders are the cause of enshittification. In fact, most of the big names I can think of are.

open hardware to me means that you have access to all of the specifications for building the hardware. Things like when the laptop company Framework posts github repos full of CAD models. Or, initiatives like RISC V.

And, alongside that, there's also open firmware.

Unlocked hardware is maybe what I would call hardware that enables swapping out the software. Although, historically, we didn't even need a term for that, because that was the default aside from outliers like Apple.

The panopticon concept from Bentham was interesting because even if there was only a small chance that you might be observed, at any given time, then people would act as if they were being observed. Even if they weren't.

We have had that kind of system, now, for just about everything. Not just from the Big Brother direction, but also the Little Brother direction. At any time, a mob of people might decide to pull up your old digital footprint and condemn you for it.

Likewise, even before AI, at any time the IRS could decide to audit your past tax filings, or data breaches could expose your personal secrets, or street camera can nab you for a traffic violation, or someone could decide to pull up surveillance footage and get you for something, and so on.

The exact degree of difference between the two systems is significant, but much of the marginal psychological burden of such things has already been paid by everyone living in industrial civilization. And, as with the panopticon, just the small chances of active monitoring already provided 80% of the sought-after result.

Indeed, that kind of condition is what people like Ted Kaczynski were so bothered by decades ago.

Those living in the epicenters of civilization, like those in the largest cities, have basically been under almost constant surveillance now for decades.

yea, but those users can still upgrade to 6.7 which isn't even out yet, and then also remain on that as a supported release for a significant amount of time.

And you'd have to balance all this against the wealth of severe X security bugs that have been coming out even just this week, and the maintenance burden of supporting it in a volunteer project with limited backing.

There's an argument that they are being too conservative. Other DEs like GNOME have already dropped X.

It is the standard, and is extremely flexible. It was probably the wrong framework for most use-cases, which are often just CRUD screens. But, we are in an AI world now, so probably Javascript in general and even Typescript is starting to become the wrong move. Programming languages and frameworks which offer a ton of guarantees is what you need, now. In my humble opinion.