This is of course flawed because a person can be coerced to share their ID. In which case you could have a system in which the vote itself is encrypted and the encryption key is private. Any random encryption key works and will yield a valid vote (actual vote = public vote + private key), so under coercion you can always generate a key that will give the output that you want, but only you know the real one.

We’re trying to create a single unified cli to every service on the planet, and make sure that everything can be set up with 3 clicks

By which measure were they less advanced? Tenochtitlan had a population of north of 200k when the Spanish arrived - bigger than most European cities at that time, bar a couple. When you read the chronicles of the conquistadores you realise how advanced they were in many ways compared with Europeans.

Th Maya were contemporary to and very similar to Greece in many ways - definitely more advanced in some aspects of mathematics and astronomy, and had an extremely complex architecture.

The gap wasn’t so big, and in some cases American cities were even more advanced - probably the complex sanitation system of most mesoamerican cities contributed to the biggest asymmetry of all - European cities were a Petri dish of filth and disease.

I don't think every graph needs a graph database. For 99% of use-cases a relational database is the preferred solution to store a graph: provided that we have objects and ways to link objects, we're good to go. The advantages of graph dbs are in running more complex graph algorithms whenever that is required (transversal, etc) which is more efficient than "hacking it" with recursive queries in a relational db.

For us, I've yet to find the need for a dedicated graph db with few exceptions, and in those exceptions https://kuzudb.com/ was the perfect solution.

The customer service itself was surreal enough that it was easier just to migrate to Anthropic

Overall the model is tra

Up until 5 years believing that humans were there more than 12k years ago was heresy. Today 30k is the accepted number, while some people are pushing it past 60k.

The belief that there were "civilisations" in the Amazon was also heresy, but now with LiDAR and deforestationthere's megalopolis being found that probably predate both the Andean and Mesoamerican cultures. There's also a set of anthropological elements connecting Andean and Mesoamerican cultures that seem to have their elements in the Amazon - like they share the same origin stories, a very similar god, etc

Anyway, Hancock is a a bit of a crackpot, but he's probably less wrong than everybody else, because we only have access about 1% of all the stuff that can be found in the Amazon, whatever written records that existed from Mayans and Aztecs was destroyed by the Spanish, and every single piece of new evidence seems to point in the direction that there were large organised cities in the Amazon

But I don't particularly like the whole "mass vs not mass" discussion as it's pointless

The nuance is this: Naturally, in a field theory the word "particle" is ill-defined, thus the only true statement one can make is that: the propagator/green function of the field contains poles at +-m, which sort of hints at what he means by stiffness.

As a result of this pole, any perturbations of the field have an exponential decaying effect. But the pole is the mass, by definition.

The real interesting question is why Z and W bosons are massive, which have to do with the higgs mechanism. I.e., prior to symmetry breaking the fields are massless, but by interacting with the Higgs, the vacuum expectation value of the two point function of the field changes, thus granting it a mass.

In sum, whoever wrote this is a bit confused and just doesn't have a lot of exposure to QFT