Being able to transport it seems like an important piece of that puzzle.

Production and storage would need to be scaled by many orders of magnitude, but that's merely an engineering problem...right?

Since the dawn of the Internet era, we've had a legal principle that platforms are relatively shielded from liability for what their users do.

It's the Internet. There's sexual content and sketchy characters on it. Occasionally people will encounter them -- even if they're under 18.

Anyone who grew up in the mid-1990s or later, think back to your own Internet usage when you were under 18. You probably found something NSFW or NSFL, dealt with it, and came out basically OK after applying your common sense. Maybe it was shocking and mildly traumatizing -- but having negative experience is how we grow. Part of growing up is honing one's sense of "that link is staying blue" or "I'm not comfortable with this, it's time to GTFO". And it seems a lot safer if you encounter the sketchy side of humanity from the other side of a screen. Think about how a young person's exposure to the underbelly of humanity might have gone in pre-Internet times: Get invited to a party, find out it's in the bad part of town and there are a bunch of sketchy people there -- well, you're exposed to all kinds of physical risks. You can't leave the party as easily as you can put your phone down.

I stopped logging onto Facebook regularly around 2009; I only log in a couple times a year. I hate what Facebook has become in the past decade and a half.

But giving a site with millions of users a multi-hundred-million-dollar fine because some of those users behave badly seems...asinine.

If your kid is old enough and responsible enough to be given unsupervised Internet access, you'd better teach them how to deal with the skeevy stuff they might encounter.

You can get even more speedup by taking into account cache effects. When you cross out all the multiples of 3 you use 512MB of bandwidth. Then when you cross out all multiples of 5 you use 512MB more. Then 512MB again when you cross out all multiples of 7. The fundamental problem is that you have many partially generated cache-sized chunks and you cycle through them in order with each prime. I'm pretty sure it's faster if you instead fully generate each chunk and then never access it again. So e.g. if your cache is 128k you create a 128k chunk and cross out multiples of 3, 5, 7, etc. for that 128k chunk. Then you do the next 128k chunk again crossing out multiples of 3, 5, 7, etc. That way you only use ~512MB of memory bandwidth in total instead of 512MB per prime number. (Actually it's only really that high for small primes, it starts becoming less once your primes get bigger than the number of bits in a cache line.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Find_first_set

- Have you ever uploaded a container to Dockerhub or Quay.io?

- Does that container have an OS inside it that has user accounts?

- Before you answered parent post's questions, did it occur to you that you might have to update your Docker images to comply?

- Did you remember on your own that you also have to delete or update older Docker images to comply, or did you not think of that until you read this question?

After you've answered these questions, please re-answer the parent post's questions.

If you work on any programming project at all in any capacity:

- Are you confident your work doesn't fall afoul of this?

- Are you confident they won't decide to come after you anyway for insane political, bureaucratic or "seeing-like-a-state" dysfunctions?

- Are you willing to bet millions of dollars in potential fines that your answers to the previous two questions are correct?

- Keep the "Next" button greyed out until you add three forms of identification.

- Ask the user to take photos of their 3 forms of ID with a webcam. Ask the user to hold them in increasingly bizarre poses -- left hand, right hand, woven between your fingers, behind your ear, between your toes.

- Add an "accessibility" button. This button pops up a text box that advises you if you can't comply because you don't have hands, ears, feet or whatever (hey, some people don't and that's perfectly fine!) you can just use a picture of somebody else's body parts, and helpfully provides a menu of AI-generated pictures of human ears, hands, etc. for you to copy-paste.

- To preserve privacy, send the actual photos to /dev/null.

- The "verify the photo of my ID" button should check whether random.random() > 0.8. On average the user will require 5 tries per photo, or 15 tries total.

- Add a checkbox that says "I am not in the state of California". Upon clicking this checkbox the "Next" button becomes not grayed out and you can proceed without completing the identity checking process.

- If the user does not seem to have a webcam installed, all UI elements are grayed out except the "I am not in the state of California" checkbox.

- If the user is installing via command line, say "Are you in the state of California [y/n]?" If the answer does not start with 'N' or 'n', it will simply repeat the question.

- The list of acceptable identification shall be: Driver's license, learner's permit, Social Security card, library card, school identification, Boy / Girl Scout membership card, school yearbook photo, Burger King Kid's Club membership card, utility bill, ISP bill, Burger King receipt, Mahalo Rewards card, any receipt paid via credit card, birthday card, a photo of a printout of any email from OnlyFans, a photo of a DNS TXT record containing the string "CALIFORNIA", a photo of your X account with a blue check mark.

Verification gets sold as "bulletproof" but I'm skeptical for a couple reasons:

- How do you establish the relationship between the code and the theorem? Lean theorem can be applied to zlib implemented in Lean, what if you want to check zlib implemented in a normal programming language like C, JS, Zig, or whatever?

- How do you know the key properties mean what you think they mean? E.g. the theorem says "ZlibDecode.decompressSingle (ZlibEncode.compress data level) = .ok data" but it feels like it would be very easy to accidentally prove ∃ x s.t. decompress(compress(x)) == x while thinking you proved ∀ x, decompress(compress(x)) == x.

I've tried Lean and Coq and...I don't really like them. The proofs use specialized programming languages. And they seem deliberately designed to require you to use a context explorer to have any hope of understanding the proof at all. OTOH a normal unit test is written in a general purpose programming language (usually the same one as the program being tested), I'm much more comfortable checking that a Claude-written unit test does what I think it's doing than a Claude-written Lean proof of correctness.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47223476

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

What's the application here? If you want to enforce that an agent's blockchain transactions follow some deterministic conditions, why not just give it access to a command-line tool (MCP / skill / whatever) that enforces your conditions?

If you want auditing of the agent's blockchain actions to be public, why not just make all your agent's actions go through an ordinary smart contract?

I don't mean to kill your enthusiasm for programming or AI. But this project...I'm sorry, but this project just isn't good. It's an over-engineered, vibe-coded "solution" in search of a problem.

This project is about a month old. I highly doubt one person produced 134 kloc in that time. I'm pretty sure a lot of it is vendorized dependencies and AI-generated code that's had minimal human review. Much of the documentation appears to be AI-generated as well.

How does anyone ever set prices for real estate? Why do sellers have such a hard time cutting price 10% or 30% when the whole concept of "value of real estate" seems very nebulous and made-up, and each property is a completely unique combination of age, footage, state of repairs, location etc.?

If you don't like prediction markets, you don't have to use them.

Why do you think other people shouldn't be allowed to use prediction markets if they want to?

PotUS told Iran "Don't shoot the protestors or else." Iran shot the protestors.

Iran chose to FAFO; "Or else" has now arrived.

I don't like Trump and based on past bad experiences I'm not sure it's wise for the US to start a war in the Middle East.

I feel sorry for the civilians caught in the middle, e.g. the ~50 Iranian schoolkids that ate a wayward bomb. People can legitimately criticize the US and Israel for that mistake, but if they do they need to also criticize Iran ~200 times harder for killing tens of thousands of protestors on purpose.

I don't agree with people who think this war is illegitimate or Iran isn't the bad guy here.

I hope those victims of immigration impersonation don't have family within China's borders. AI-enabled impersonation and intimidation are far from the worst of China's crimes [1] against its overseas critics.

China likes to make you an offer you can't refuse [2] [3]: You're saying stuff the Chinese government doesn't like, but you live outside its borders and the secret police can't get at you? You need to come to China and be jailed (or worse). If you don't, your family will be the ones who are jailed (or worse). Or you can unalive yourself, and save the glorious Chinese Communist Party the expense of a bullet.

[1] China would say "the government punishes a criminal's family" is not a crime, it's a perfectly legal implementation of government policy under Chinese law. I respond that the death camps were perfectly legal implementation of government policy under Nazi law, but were still crimes against humanity -- China's actions fall in this category of crimes.

As I understand it: Western societies have a very individualistic view of responsibility. If you didn't commit a crime, you're innocent. Punishing the innocent family members of a criminal is morally abominable.

In the Chinese Communist Party's view, criminal responsibility is collectivist. By their definition, the family members of a criminal share responsibility for the crime regardless of their participation in the criminal acts. "Innocent family members of a criminal" is a logically inconsistent concept in their world view. The family of a criminal is guilty by definition -- being related to a criminal is itself a crime.

This is sickening to me.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fox_Hunt

[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-08/fbi-chief-says-china-...

What happens if I bring a laptop with an "illegal" OS without this unwanted "feature" into the state? Will I be denied access to public wifi in hotels and restaurants? Or will it grant me access, but snitch on me -- make a call to the state police to come deal with someone with an illegal laptop? Will I be forced to install a different OS while a police officer watches? Will my laptop be confiscated and destroyed as contraband? Will I be thrown in a California prison?

I don't want to take a risk and find out.

I feel like if you don't want companies to cold-email you, you shouldn't make your email public. Github provides noreply email addresses for this purpose.

But I do think tariffs are an appropriate policy tool that should be used to protect US companies against overseas competitors that get government subsidies or other unfair advantages: Low wages, safety regulations, worker protection, environmental rules, etc.

I doubt Trump's seriously seeking a nuclear deal as he (in)famously withdrew from the deal established by the Obama administration [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

Pasting a challenge string once and letting its continued presence prove continued ownership of a domain is a great step forward. But I agree with others that there is absolutely no reason to expose account numbers; it should be a random ID associated with the account in Let's Encrypt's database.

As a workaround, you should probably make a new account for each domain.