HackerTrans
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

sepositus

no profile record

投稿

Show HN: Supply chain security for everything that isn't a container

blob.meigma.dev
1 ポイント·投稿者 sepositus·6 か月前·0 コメント

Show HN: Blobber – Push and stream arbitrary files with OCI registries

github.com
5 ポイント·投稿者 sepositus·6 か月前·1 コメント

コメント

sepositus
·5 か月前·議論
Yes, the protocol is going to be open and the plan is to submit PRs to various projects when we're at that point. It's not really an "either or" with ygddrasil but more like a "both and."
sepositus
·5 か月前·議論
> I've been interested in doing something similar in the past, but I could really never solve issues like domain squatting and stopping individuals from claiming every name possible

I think that's just a property of a naming system. Without something like a centralized threat of force that can know every person participating in the system - there really is no recourse. The approach we are taking is making it difficult to create a speculative market around names which seems to be the driving force behind squatters.

Happy to discuss it in more detail: [email protected]

(Note: that's an alias that goes to my email address which I avoid putting in public places for obvious reasons).
sepositus
·5 か月前·議論
I am in the process of co-founding a new protocol which creates a decentralized root of trust using normal plain-text names (i.e. `foo.bar`). One of the goals I hope to obtain is allowing domain-style lookups of private websites hosted on P2P networks. It's lofty, but the dialog used by OP is _very_ close to why I think it's necessary.
sepositus
·5 か月前·議論
How specific is the law? What if side loading requires a "trusted" signed certificate where trusted means from Google Play?

Not even playing devil's advocate, just wondering how many loopholes actually exist.
sepositus
·5 か月前·議論
Usually I find the hype is centered around creating software no one cares about. If you're creating a prototype for dozens of investors to demo - I seriously doubt you'd take the "mainstream" approach.
sepositus
·5 か月前·議論
Always sounds so interesting and then I do a search only to found out it's another product trying to sell you your 20th "AI credit package." I really don't see how these apps will last that long. I pay for the big three already - and no I don't want to cancel them just so I can use your product.
sepositus
·6 か月前·議論
This is a valid observation. I wonder though if people who have been coding for decades, but choose to use AI assistance, would fall under the same AI slop category. It’s an interesting dilemma because the overwhelming amount of content getting posted just ends up breeding a ton of negative feelings towards any amount of AI usage.
sepositus
·6 か月前·議論
It's most likely because people just assume it's a misogynist quote.
sepositus
·6 か月前·議論
"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times."
sepositus
·6 か月前·議論
But it immediately forgets the results of step 1 by the time it hits step 3 (due to context rot) and starts inventing action items.
sepositus
·昨年·議論
> Too distracted by social media and our phones perhaps?

I think this is a significant contributing factor. It's becoming increasingly difficult to have any semblance of a meaningful conversation with those around me. I don't really know how to describe it other than an apparent "dumbing down" of the average person. I despise elitists, and I hate to even act in a way that might come off as elitist, but I simply have no other explanation for what I am seeing. People just want to talk about the latest trend on TikTok and have no interest in applying anything close to intellectual thought to what's happening around them.
sepositus
·昨年·議論
I see it more as a sign of how few mainstream alternatives have been proposed. I've been guilty of generally assuming a communist bent when I see a negatively zealous response to the "free market" ideology. I don't act on the assumption, but from my experience, it tends to be the most common result.

Our political system seems hell-bent on only ever having two solutions to a problem, though.