Zero-knowledge proofs and PKI system could fix all of that. Nobody needs to know all of your personal information, only on the "need-to-know basis" and via easily revocable access. But as long as humans are the ones who decides on this I don't believe it will ever happen. At least until sentient AI is in control.
We have had problems with people creating Apple Relay emails, registering, then deactivating their emails, then complaining that it doesn’t works. An average person doesn’t have the tech intuition that we have, so we have to work with them.
It is difficult for many of us to argue for these solutions to replace so many real-world identification solutions. Yes, split secrets and PKI systems properly implemented, both socially and technically, could fix these issues.
Social Security Numbers could have been replaced, fully or in part, as secure tokens decades ago.
I wouldn't have to worry about it being my time to lose my personal data in a major security breach. I already have lost personal info enough fighting for humane healthcare solutions in old age.
But if we argue intelligently for these solutions that have been tainted by bitcoin and "crypto" we are crypto-bros. We are tech-bros. Even if we grew up dreaming of cypherpunk technology protecting men and women's privacy and body rights, it doesn't matter anymore.
It's a slippery slope, these cruel anti-tech and anti-other jokes, and for me, my IQ on the political outcomes mattered more than my IQ on math problems.
At this point we really should start working on interplanetary time standards, as well as better handling relativistic time effects. With more and more satellites and computers in deep space it might become a point of failure in the near future.
We have been working on interplanetary (or rather non-earth centric) time standards already for a while. See e.g. Barycentric Coordinate Time, Coordinated Lunar Time, Areocentric Coordinate Time, and related publications.
In China you get the economy of scale for building nuclear power plants precisely because they are standardized. Thus, pivoting to SMR is unnecessary, since they produce significantly less energy.
> In China you get the economy of scale for building nuclear power plants precisely because they are standardized.
Is this really true? Or how can we know it is true? For example: Why is the reason not explained by incredibly cheap construction labor costs compared to other rich countries?
Related: UAE had zero nuclear power plants before the Barakah nuclear power plant[1] opened starting in 2020. They built 4x Korean APR-1400s for only 32B USD. That seems incredibly cheap. How did they do it? I assume (near) slave labour prices for construction workers, like most other stuff built in that country.
Brandolini, is that you calling? There is so much bullshit here that I don't know where to start. The waters are murky...
> How you raise finance is incredibly important for nuclear costs.
You really think the UAE, that has a sovereign wealth fund with assets of more than 2.5T (<-- trillion!) USD needs to borrow money to build nuclear reactors? Plus, Korea buys heaps of oil and gas from UAE. There are so many ways to "settle this bill".
> You really think the UAE, that has a sovereign wealth fund with assets of more than 2.5T (<-- trillion!) USD needs to borrow money to build nuclear reactors?
No, I'm answering your question as to why their build costs are surprisingly low. They didn't finance at the rate that other builds did and finance related costs can be 2/3rds of the total cost of a nuclear plant.
> finance related costs can be 2/3rds of the total cost of a nuclear plant
Source? I asked ChatGPT, but I cannot find any reliable source that "finance related costs can be 2/3rds of the total cost of a nuclear plant". It sounds like more Brandolini bullshit to me. Most of the build period was during ZIRP!
Yes, and they should also rewrite all available packages for Nix in Rust, along with the Linux kernel.
No, that's still not enough complexity! They need at least a thousand agents using trillions of tokens around the clock to get us the Nix and Rust slop we need.
Given how slowly it progresses in Forgejo, there are better alternatives - Radicle[1] (full decentralization, not a federation) and Tangled[2] (federation).
Man I was so excited about Tangled, until they announced they sought and got VC investments, which makes it not even worth looking into for long-term projects. I still wish them luck and hope they'll be the lonely 0.1% that can resist enshittification even during pressure from investors, but realistically my hope is fairly close to the bottom.
Radicle seems better in that regards, but instead is on top of their own cryptocurrency, which comes with its own issues.
Personally my best hope is still "real" federation across centralized services, ala ForgeFed, but ideally we can make all these approaches interoperate in the future, that would be really awesome.
Radicle is not based on crypto. The governance organization uses a DAO, but that’s not tied in with the project, only with the main dev team; it’s irrelevant to users. They had some early ideas to incentivize participation through crypto, but they abandoned it in alpha. I don’t know why this notion persists.
Personally I don't find the incentives of the only developer team working on something to be irrelevant to me as a user, if I'm looking for a long-term solution. Self-hosting/on-prem still seems like the only sensible solution here.
I think the notion persists because they are seemingly still using a DAO as the governance structure, so the organization sits on top of a cryptocurrency (is the idea of DAOs at least, in practice it isn't always so).
> Self-hosting/on-prem still seems like the only sensible solution here.
Radicle is self-hosted? Not sure what you mean by this.
If one doesn’t want anyone working on it to be crypto-adjacent, then I guess it wouldn’t be a good fit, but you can host and use it just fine without touching crypto yourself.
Nuclear power plants are notorious for their long planning, approval and build times (and cost overruns). Then again, I wouldn't want to live near a nuclear power plant built as fast as a data center either...
Finland they made a few mistakes by becoming overly dependent on Russian reactor designs Russian sourced fuel for those reactors. Relations with Russia are a bit strained (especially recently, but they were always complex). Luckily, the wind sector is booming in Finland in recent years. They have a lot of on-shore capacity.
A lot of reactors in the US are similarly dependent on Russia for uranium enrichment and supplies. Some of that dependency relates to post cold war era treaties (now cancelled because of the strained relationship with Russia) for Russia to decommission its nuclear weaponry and to help Russia economically.
The Loviisa plant actually predates the end of the cold war but Finland at the time was not part of NATO and the relationship with the Soviet Union was very complicated given that they had fought an ugly war in WW II that ended up with the Soviet Union taking a large chunk of Finnish territory. The Loviisa plant ended up built during what is now seen as the definitely very chilly phase of the cold war (under Brezhnev).
And then Finland repeated the mistake with their more recent nuclear additions.
A quick search shows that there are plenty of alternatives. First, all nuclear power plants keep a excess supply of fuel on site, about 2-3 years. If Russia says tomorrow: "No more nuclear fuel exports to any 'unfriendly' European nations.", there are plenty of alternatives. US-based Westinghouse already produces nuclear fuel that is compatible with many Soviet-designed reactors. Plus France (Framatome and Orano), Netherlands (Urenco), Canada and Kazakstan can easily backfill any European needs, be it raw material or final fuel.
You could add support also for the Woxi[1][2] for most of the symbolic math, also should be way faster than bunch of glue over different Python libraries.
reply