A different approach, refining the square root based sigmoid with a polynomial, is in my blog post "a few of my favorite sigmoids" [1]. I'm not sure which is faster without benchmarking, but I'm pretty sure its worst case error is better than any of the fast approximations.
You can add to this the Apple terminology, which is simdgroup. This reinforces your point – vendors have a tendency to invent their own terminology rather than use something standard.
I have to give it to Apple though in this case. Waves or warps are ridiculously uninformative, while simdgroups at least convey some useful information.
Indeed. I try not to use the word "native" these days as it has such ambiguous meaning. I also have thought for a while that Windows no longer has native UI, only legacy (Win32) and a rotating carousel of mostly-failed attempts. There have been a few HN stories in the last week that bear me out, notably [1]. Mac of course is in better shape, as AppKit and SwiftUI are both viable (and interop well enough).
I found this article about as compelling as all the other attempts at identifying him. Half of the cypherpunks (I was pretty active) had the same set of interests in public key cryptography, libertarianism, anonymity, criticism of copyright, and predecessor systems like Chaum's ecash; we talked about those in virtually every meeting.
The most compelling evidence is Adam Back's body language, as subjectively observed by a reporter who is clearly in love with his own story. The stylometry also struck me as a form of p-hacking—keep re-rolling the methodology until you get the answer you want.
It's entirely possible Adam is Satoshi, but in my opinion this article moves us no closer to knowing whether that's true or not. He's been on everybody's top 5 list for years, and this article provides no actual evidence that hasn't been seen before.
What struck me in particular was the fact the reporter noticed that Back had theorized how to evade stylometry. Obviously, if one of the people in question had specifically come up with ways to evade methods, you’d want to re-roll those methods to account for that.
That, alongside a number of other tidbits (Back’s activity and inactivity patterns lining up with Satoshi’s appearance and disappearance, his refusal to provide email metadata, his financial incentive to hide his identity as Satoshi under US securities law) makes the case a lot more meaningful than just “likely p-hacking.”
>his financial incentive to hide his identity as Satoshi under US securities law
I don't think you can attribute this to financial incentive. The actual Satoshi could forfeit 90% of their BTC and still have more than they could know what to do with.
At those kinds of levels I can see personal security being a higher consideration.
Either way it would give no indication who might be Satoshi because all candidates would have a similar incentive if they were Satoshi, and you are measuring the absence of information.
why does everybody assume that whoever is Satoshi still has access to their wallet? It's absolutely possible whoever is Satoshi has simply lost the key.
We're talking new technology where you're running fast and loose. It's absolutely possible, and I'd say a big reason why someone would not want to admit to being Satoshi.
I'm Satoshi, but I also lost billions because I messed up a Debian upgrade.
Further, no one would believe them, and they'd still endlessly be a target for criminals. No benefit to revealing any information beyond mild dismissals, IMO.
> I'm Satoshi, but I also lost billions because I messed up a Debian upgrade.
That would be very funny. I used to own a whole bitcoin when it was worth nothing.Didn't think it would be ever worth anything and formatted my hard drive to change distro.
I commented elsewhere in this thread theorising that Satoshi could be the work of both Finney and Back. If that has any basis in reality, then it stands to reason that perhaps the wallet is locked away in a trust or at least legally unobtainable until certain conditions are met (e.g. Adam Back's passing). I can imagine a scenario in the future where a law firm makes a press release confirming they're in possession of Satoshi's wallet and have been instructed to liquidate and donate its proceeds.
I think this is plausible as well. One of the emails used by Satoshi was tracked to CA (where Finney lived), the original paper talks in plural "we" (fwiw), and the Dorian Satoshi person lived in CA and could have been an inspiration for the name (if Finney had come across him somehow) since he was a very private, anti gov person (not saying he had anything to do with BTC)
Or what if Satoshi deliberately destroyed their key?
The motivations behind Bitcoin were clear.
All the wealthy people I know don’t really do it for the money. The money is the gauge or the metric they use to judge how well they are playing the game but what motivates them is the love of the game and their sense of purpose.
If someone was to truly believe that Bitcoin was going to be a gold/USD/Eurodollar/swift etc. replacement then their metric of success isn’t money if they got in early.
Also I think that people discuss this stuff in a very narrow minded way. “Is it one person or multiple people?” Maybe it was one person to begin with then others joined in to contribute under the pseudonym.
Given all the available information (including the DHS worker revealing that Satoshi was identified by the USA government and he was multiple people)[0] this is the most likely case.
It's entirely possible that Satoshi has deliberately destroyed the keys, but lost them? I doubt it. All these early cryptography guys were very conscious about keeping their keys secure, they discussed it endlessly.
Bill is donating his money for 2 reasons; taxes and an attempt to make himself look good similar to Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. Microsoft didn't get where it was by playing nice but it is amazing to see how quickly that was forgotten. I think it was working too except that his friendship with Jeffery was exposed, we shall see.
One other factoid that the reporter did not mention: if you read through all of the cited papers in Satoshi's original BTC paper, only one of them is similar in layout, language formality levels, citation setup, and length: Adam Back's Hashcash
Personally, if someone accuses me of lying, but I am actually telling the truth, I immediately start acting like a liar. It's really embarrassing and hard to explain. I can't believe such a seasoned reporter is leaning so hard on "his face went red."
What's also worth noting is that they were not alone in the room, talking privately. Everything being said could presumably be heard by Back's business associates as well. Some of the questions could well be enough to cause embarrassment or unease on that account.
Yea pretty similar idea to a polygraph test which for years was called a "lie detector."
In reality, they measure a bunch of things that may indicate lying, but they are just as likely to indicate that a person is nervous or reacting to the fact they're being tested at all.
They're typically inadmissible in court these days, however, there is still a pretty solid amount of blind trust in their results.
That part of the article gives a similar "lie detecting" hypothesis, just without the machine.
It did make me think - if he seems nervous under this questioning, it could be because he's actually Satoshi. Or it could also be because he's thinking something like, oh god, if this jerkoff convinces a bunch of people I'm actually Satoshi, all of the businesses I've worked so hard to found will collapse, I might be convicted of crimes around lying about it while founding these businesses, I might get targeted by any number of criminal gangs or even nation-states who will do all kinds of torture to me and my loved ones and will never believe that I'm not actually Satoshi and don't really have a secret stash of a bazillion Bitcoins.
Naturally, this journalist doesn't seem to care much about any of that, or that it wouldn't really change anything at this point besides making the life of whoever it actually is hell.
In fact, we are incredibly bad at telling lies from the body language of people we don't know well. Pretty much all the "well known" tells are sheer and utter bullshit that at best tells you if a person is stressed. That may or may not mean they are lying, but unless you know that person well enough to know if they have specific tells that correlates with lying for them, your odds are poor.
Just a shot in the dark but any chance you grew up in an intensely religious household?
I grew up evangelical and I've noticed this tendency in myself, and saw the connection to how the authorities at my school or church basically demanded dishonest performances or apologies under threat of physical punishment. Several friends over the years have said roughly the same, so I have an armchair theory this is pretty prevalent for that sort of childhood.
If you were around those circles, a lot of the "signals" in the article just look like the shared baseline culture rather than anything uniquely identifying
I actually think the most compelling evidence is the fact that he was one of the first people to get rich from it, which also explains why he never had to touch his vault of coins.
This is a perfectly reasonable question, and I think there are two aspects to it.
First, one of the research questions tested by Xilem is whether it is practical to write UI in Rust. It's plausible that scripting languages do end up being better, but we don't really know that until we've explored the question more deeply. And there are other very interesting explorations of this question, including Dioxus and Leptos.
Second, even if scripting languages do turn out to be better at expressing UI design and interaction (something I find plausible, though not yet settled), it's very compelling to have a high performance UI engine under a scriptable layer. I've done some experiments with Python bindings, and I think in an alternate universe you'd have apps like ComfyUI as high performance desktop app rather than a web page. Also, the layering of Xilem as the reactive layer, backed by Masonry as the widgets, is explicitly designed to be amenable to scripting, though to my knowledge there hasn't been a lot of actual work on this.
The way Vello/Masonry/Xilem are split projects is partially what got me interested in it (and in turn caused me to post it to HN), as well as the reactive architecture of Xilem.
I do believe a garbage collected interpreted language would work best for UIs.
Something like Vala (for gtk) but with a runtime/vm.
python-qt has shown to be a very strong combination. My issue with such solutions is that packaging a python application to the end-user can bloat binary size.
I also think GTK should get some credit in that space, because due to GObject introspection it's easy to interface with GTK with any language.
There is an Svg widget. It only supports static images, not animations, though this is certainly something I'm interested in.
It does support the modern 2D imaging model. It is in transition from using "Vello GPU" (aka Vello Classic) to the understory imaging abstraction, which means it can use any competent 2D renderer, including Skia.
My understanding, which is to be taken with a grain of salt, is that there's an additional constraint, not stated in the Scientific American article, that the plane curve be irreducible. The example of x^4 is reducible, it's x^2 * x^2 among other thing. The actual conjecture is expressed in terms of genus, but this follows from the genus-degree formula.
The reason for the confusion is that a smooth, projective plane curve of degree d has genus (d-1)(d-2)/2, which is 2 or greater starting at d=4. Hence the phrasing in the article, which is missing the “smooth, projective” hypothesis. The equation y = x^4 doesn’t define a smooth curve when extended to the projective plane, because it has a singularity at infinity.
Thanks btw for saying clearly that BIO is not suitable for DVI output. I was curious about this and was planning to ask on social media.
I've done some fun stuff in PIO, in particular the NRZI bit stuffing for USB (12Mbps max). That's stretching it to its limit. Clearly there will be things for which BIO is much better.
I suspect that a variant of BIO could probably do DVI by optimizing for that specific use case (in particular, configuring shifters on the output FIFO), but I'm not sure it's worth the lift.
USB 12Mbps is one of the envisioned core use cases - the Baochip doesn't have a host USB interface, so being able to emulate a full-speed USB host with a BIO core opens the possibility of things like having a keyboard that you can plug into the device. CAN is another big use case, once there is a CAN bus emulator there's a bunch of things you can do. Another one is 10/100Mbit ethernet - it's not fast - but good for extremely long runs (think repeaters for lighting protocols across building-scale deployments).
When considering the space of possibilities, I focused on applications that I could see there being actual product sold that rely upon the feature. The problem with DVI is that while it's a super-clever demo, I don't see volume products going to market relying upon that feature. The moment you connect to an external monitor, you're going to want an external DRAM chip to run the sorts of applications that effectively utilize all those pixels. I could be wrong and mis-judged the utility of the demo but if you do the analysis on the bandwidth and RAM available in the Baochip, I feel that you could do a retro-gaming emulator with the chip, but you wouldn't, for example, be replacing a video kiosk with the chip. Running DOOM on a TV would be cool, but also, you're not going to sell a video game kit that just runs DOOM and nothing else.
The good news is there's plenty of room to improve the performance of the BIO. If adoption is robust for the core, I can make the argument to the company that's paying for the tape-outs to give me actual back-end resources and I can upgrade the cores to something more capable, while improving the DMA bandwidth, allowing us to chase higher system frequencies. But realistically, I don't see us ever reaching a point where, for example, we're bit-banging USB high speed at 480Mbps - if not simply because the I/Os aren't full-swing 3.3V at that point in time.
My feeling about programmable IOs is they’re fun, but not the right choice for commodity high speed interfaces like USB. You obviously can make them work, but they’re large compared to what you would need for a dedicated unit. The DVI over PIO is a good example: showed something interesting (and that’s great!) but not widely useful. Also, a lot of protocols, even slow ones, have failure and edge cases that would need to be covered. Not to mention the physical characteristics, like you’ve said for high speed USB.
This is true, but only relevant if you order enough units (>100 k? Depending on price & margin of course) to customize your die. Otherwise, you have to find a chip with the I/Os that you want, all the rest being equal. Good luck with that if you need something specific (8 UARTs for instance) or obscure.
Yes, I can see BIO being really good at USB host. With 4k of SRAM I can see it doing a lot more of the protocol than just NRZI; easily CRC and the 1kHz SOF heartbeat, and I wouldn't be surprised if it could even do higher level things like enumeration.
You may be right about not much scope for DVI in volume products. I should be clear I'm just playing with RP2350 because it's fun. But the limitation you describe really has more to do with the architectural decision to use a framebuffer. I'm interested in how much rendering you can get done racing the beam, and have come to the conclusion it's quite a lot. It certainly includes proportional fonts, tiles'n'sprites, and 4bpp image decompression (I've got a blog post in the queue). Retro emulators are a sweet spot for sure (mostly because their VRAM fits neatly in on-chip SRAM), but I can imagine doing a kiosk.
Definitely agree that bit-banging USB at 480Mbps makes no sense, a purpose-built PHY is the way to go.
The clearance for AC8646 to land on runway 4 is given in a sequence starting at 4:58. "Vehicle needs to cross the runway" at 6:43. Truck 1 and company asks for clearance to cross 4 at 6:53. Clearance is granted at 7:00. Then ATC asks both a Frontier and Truck 1 to stop, voice is hurried and it's confusing.
Funny enough, the author of this blog post wrote another one on exactly that topic, entitled "What do executives do, anyway?"[1]. If you read it, you'll find it's written from quite an interesting perspective, not quite "fly on the wall," but perhaps as close as you're going to get in a realistic scenario.
[1]: https://raphlinus.github.io/audio/2018/09/05/sigmoid.html
reply