There is a truly fascinating, and even inspiring, book about the company and the sale of FrontPage to Microsoft: https://www.amazon.com/High-Stakes-No-Prisoners-Internet/dp/...

"where required".... hmm, that seems OK. We don't want to violate the law!

"or permitted".... er...

[I wonder why this comment is being voted down. Do people here think it's NOT OK to comply with the law with respect to retaining data? Or is the reason somehow the opposite of that? Not sure. But my point was that the "where required" clause seems moot if they are going to retain data where "permitted", which in my book, is NOT OK.]

But, I haven't installed Tahoe. I may skip it entirely, hoping that they do a Snow Leopard-like clean-up-the-mess release in September.

I would argue that it should be the UN that does something like this, if it's done at all. I would like to see a world in which there was a top-level body that would arrest a dictator, the same way the US government would arrest someone who tried to become dictator of an American state.

But it wouldn't be up to the governor of one of the other states to do it without the agreement of the rest of the country. That would be chaos.

Let's change that here and now! :)

I was one of the optimists in the very early 2000s when I attended a talk by Columbia professor Eli Noam. In 2002, he wrote an article in the Financial Times called "Why the internet is bad for democracy" which essentially predicted the world is we know it.

I immediately saw that he was right, at least with regard to the fact that it COULD turn out as it has, in fact, turned out. He fundamentally changed my view, way back then. In 2005 a version was published in a more academic context: “Why the Internet is bad for democracy.” Communications of the ACM 48(10): 57–58 (2005).

Here's the FT version: https://www.citicolumbia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Why-...

I find that incredibly frustrating and dangerous, but as far as I can see, it's the way it is.

(The limit is 1-e^(-2).)

So, if you have a LOT of chances to try things that are highly improbable but high upside, your odds are quite good.

There's a combination of solace in the face of cruelty, humor, gentleness and truthfulness there that unique. Certainly, when I was older, I came to also love Watterson's and Larson's work. They have an edge that Shulz's work didn't. But his work had something theirs didn't.

I can understand how it could be hard for people who didn't grow up with Peanuts make their way into it. For people used to an edginess that Peanuts doesn't have, it looks merely cute. But it really isn't. There is a depth to the feelings Schulz portrayed.

Perhaps to really enjoy Peanuts, one had to have experienced the new strips coming out each day, which added a depth of knowledge about the relationships between the characters which was an essential background that is just not there when one sees a couple of strips now.

Watterson wrote:

> “The wonder of ‘Peanuts’ is that it worked on so many levels simultaneously.… Children could enjoy the silly drawings … while adults could see the bleak undercurrent of cruelty, loneliness and failure, or the perpetual theme of unrequited love, or the strip’s stark visual beauty.

(Regarding that last, Peanuts was displayed at the Louvre....)

I expect that's exactly what they have in mind. If they're successful, Meta's project will be to Apple's what early MP3 players were to the original iPod.

The jury is out on whether Cook can pull it off.

Extremely improbable. Astronomically improbable. Virtually impossible. All that is absolutely, 100% true.

But given the stakes, similarly astronomically high, I'm not sure it didn't actually make sense to do a quarantine for a few weeks. Yes, I know the indium seals didn't work. But the fact that we failed to create a quarantine doesn't mean it was worthless to at least make an attempt. It cost us virtually nothing in comparison to the stakes.

That's my personal response, anyway, and reflects the opinion I would have expressed at the time if I happened to have been involved in the project.

1) Highly Sybil resistant. Neither the keypair owner nor anyone else can re-use the same underlying ID to link to another keypair.

2) Very high anonymity. While the Sybil resistance requires a nullifier representing the underlying ID to be present in a database (or stored in a public, decentralized form for blockchain use), there is no way to connect that nullifier with the keypair. Even if someone were to use brute force to successfully connect the nullifier with a specific underlying ID, such as a passport, there is no way to connect that ID with the keypair. (In the passport case, even merely brute-forcing the nullifier could only be done by the issuing government, someone who has hacked the government database, or someone with physical access to the passport. This is due to the fact that other passport information than the passport number is included in generating the underlying zero-knowledge proof.)

I understand that other technologies may have similar end-functionality, but this has the advantage that most of the functionality is encapsulated in a single Rust executable that could be easily used in any context, whether distributed or decentralized. (If anyone would like to know more, my contact info is at garyrobinson.net.)