djao · HackerTrans

قبل شهرينdiscuss

I never said being old is an excuse to spoil. My comment was solely in response to OP's comment, which specifically mentioned the fact that this is a thread about Nethack 5.0.0. The fact that we are in a thread about Nethack 5.0.0 is not relevant to the particular spoiler at hand.

djao

قبل شهرينdiscuss

Nethack is what you get when you take a team of developers and have them focus on gameplay to the exclusion of all else. No graphics, music, marketing, apps, action sequences, or profit motive. Just pure gameplay, with a richness of interactions and possibilities unmatched by more polished modern games. Nethack is so well balanced that, for most players, being gifted the three most powerful items in the game from the start barely affects your winning chances.

AI researchers think NetHack is interesting [1, 2]. You should too!

[1] https://proceedings.mlr.press/v176/hambro22a/hambro22a.pdf

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00690

djao

قبل شهرينdiscuss

OP is talking about a several decade old version of nethack, not nethack 5.0.0.

djao

قبل 3 أشهرdiscuss

Demand? Excuse me? There is no demand. He is free to disclose or not, his choice. I am then free to believe him or not, my choice.

djao

قبل 3 أشهرdiscuss

If privacy were such a big concern, then why did he release the messages (without metadata) in the first place? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to keep the messages completely private?

djao

قبل 3 أشهرdiscuss

You have it backwards. The fact that he doesn't release the metadata is interesting. If he had released the metadata, it would be wholly uninteresting.

I don't think the emails exist. What was published in court records, lacking metadata, could easily be forged. The metadata is harder to forge. Not impossible, but harder, especially long after the fact.

djao

قبل 3 أشهرdiscuss

[dead]

djao

قبل 3 أشهرdiscuss

The refusal to provide email metadata is the most damning evidence. Adam Back clearly has the emails; he is the one who provided them in the first place during the previous court case. Everyone knows he has the emails. If Adam Back and Satoshi are two different people, the metadata should be exculpatory, and easy to share. There's literally no reason whatsoever to hide the metadata unless he is the one.

In a court of law, self-disclosure of inculpatory information cannot be compelled, so this analysis does not pass muster in a court of law. The court of public opinion, however, is quite different.

djao

قبل 4 أشهرdiscuss

All they had to do was exempt free and open source software from the requirements, which are unworkable in the FOSS context anyway, and they would have gotten away scot-free with their tech company pillow fight.

But no, they had to let collateral damage frag the free software crowd, which is inconsequential to their aims anyway, but 100% a huge concern for those suffering the collateral damage.

djao

قبل 7 أشهرdiscuss

Goalposts are the entire problem. I read the original article ... Holy wow, undefined goalposts!

djao

قبل سنتينdiscuss

The stable releases don't have this particular backdoor, but they're still using older versions of the library that were released by the same bad actor.

comments