Further, you could allow for voice input by running whisper STT locally, then doing a small context-aware correction pass with Gemma or Qwen to correct words it got wrong.

I get throwing in the towel with all these issues but I personally didn't encounter half of them.

Thank you for the explanations. I think I should read the draft RFC.

The last part of your comment caught my attention, seems great if that is being worked on. Can I find more information on it somewhere?

What I do think though, is that Certificate Transparency as we currently have it is a fairly broken mess. Maybe partly due to RFC 6962.

The easiest task might just be validating SCTs. Easy, you just validate a signature... But no, that doesn't yet prove that the cert has been logged, that requires doing an inclusion proof!

So, someone can do inclusion and consistency proofs. If a log presents a split view that should be noticable through gossiping. But what gossiping is implemented? I think the only gossiping that happens is in the CT Google group/mailing list that probably few people know of.

Then, what if you want to actually detect malicious or misissued certs for your domain? Ideally you want to do it yourself and not use some service. Probably you just have one server and IP. Now you have to download insane amounts of data from ~60 logs and hope that someone else is checking the consistency and correctness of those logs. And you have to scrape those logs faster than they grow. Now, what if everyone running a web server did monitor? Even static logs probably couldn't withstand that.

Next, what about the log lists? One can talk all about sovereignty but really you rely on and have to trust Apple and Google with their policies and log lists if you want to meaningfully participate in this system and by extension, the encrypted web...

CT is fully deployed to production but still has many design flaws and things that are still just theoretical. It seems many of them are addressed by MTCs. I hope it can be better.

The one thing I didn't see addressed is the gossiping thing. Couldn't a malicious CA still present a split view under this model?

And if I'll have to rely on mirrors then I still can't independently monitor.

Think almost like unix pipelines, have used it for many workflows.

I have tried available options including generators.

For example, why do unit definitions have to be actual files on disk? Then, all of these files are reloaded when the daemon reloads, not just changed ones. But, why couldn't there be an API letting me add units programmatically? (There kind of is but it's constrained/inflexible)

Or, why can't I declare multiple units in the same file? It's really designed around the filesystem instead of abstracting at a different level, which is a choice I don't think is smart. It's not like it follows the unix philosophy though.

As for the format used for unit definitions, I wish TOML had been around so they could have had something sensible...

A human can not only learn from their mistakes and blunders but also, until very recently, the social pressure and fear of judgement would push (some) humans to try their best.

Now however, it is less socially acceptable to judge a human for mistakes made with AI coding because we are in a time of experimentation. So the blame has to go towards AI coding. Of course, coding with AI can be acceptable, if the human using the AI is rational and responsible.

But I think the bigger implicit point is actually that perhaps experimentation shouldn't be done on real projects and products as nonchalantly.

Just stacking them together as little building blocks has been amazing.

Great app to hopefully let more people realize that it's not all just huge LLMs that have to run somewhere else!

Maybe this is confusing due to the Brotli compression algorithm. In that case, it should also be Brötli but was probably a pragmatic choice to change the ö to an o.

Sure there is leisure and entertainment but if you want to use it to do something meaningful, with only 24 hours in a day you'll probably have much more money than time to use it well.

On the other hand 1B is really an arbitrary choice of number, so I think the reason he would choose this specific number definitely has more to do with arbitrary reasons (class, status), perhaps subconciously.

Personally I don't agree with the parent that everyone wants that much money. I think I can safely say not only am I content with much less but I also don't ever want to have the responsibility of having to manage that. Though I'm already saying that from a place of privilege where I don't need to worry about survival.

Furthermore, a lot of money almost certainly places you in an outlier group where normal laws and rights as formulated by humans don't apply the same. Assuming everyone has some empathy and sense of justice/righteousness, that should make them intrinsically not want to be in that group.