FOSSdev, poetry, post-postmodernism. Making distraction-free and privacy-respecting software. Neovim/Rust/Gentoo/Alpine enjoyer. Rarely posting introvert. Anti-"anti": I believe in focusing on what we are rather than on what we are not. Otherwise we become what we are not. ────────────────────────── I enjoy chilled intellectual conversations, preferably dialogues rather than debates 🧠 If we're debating, I care that none of us is overwhelmed by our own stress, care that we're not debating out of our hallucinations about each other's positions 👾 Otherwise, we're engaging in rational debates imitation. We're not on some legacy media platform; nobody can ban anyone, so naive traditionalist-ish ethics don't work here. We're damned to learn how to communicate effectively here without unnecessarily harming each other 🫂 I haven't yet encountered any -ism that would be sound enough with my belief system. If I refer to whatever particular thing some controversial figure has said, that doesn't automatically mean I agree with their entire discourse. Some of the topics I have *opinions* on: 🔐 #Privacy & #Security 🌍 #MeaningCrisis & #MetaTheories & #MetaModernism & #NonReductionistPhilosophy 🪟 #DevelopmentalPsychology & #AQAL & ( #KenWilber vs #DavidLong ) 🦖 #PostModernism 🤖 #AI & #Consciousness & ( #Emergentism vs #Idealism ) 🧘🏻♂️ #Meditation & #Creativity & #PostMetaphysical attempts to make sense of inevitable #TransPersonalExperiences ⚪ #Psychedelics & #Nootropics I'm generally open and peaceful ☮️ I might, however, with respect to each other's privacy, occasionally *proportionally* highlight some toxic culty behavior in case of ensuring hard enough that it's damaging to all of us. That's not identical to attempts to overthrow somebody's reputation entirely: I'm normally coming from a position that everybody's sincerely trying to build #freedom here 🗽
Public Key
npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 Profile Code
nprofile1qqswls4kuk2gpu89tny8c6d0q6mdrggl5f0ya226gwv833qhn8zncxgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsqyvtt2
Show more details
Published at
2026-08-12T18:06:52Z Event JSON
{
"id": "00000d36be26b907454dc89384ef7adfcd18a0bd9ede62702250f365ff89c7a2" ,
"pubkey": "efc2b6e59480f0e55cc87c69af06b6d1a11fa25e4ea95a439878c41799c53c19" ,
"created_at": 1786558012 ,
"kind": 0 ,
"tags": [
[
"L",
"ISO-639-1"
],
[
"l",
"en",
"ISO-639-1"
],
[
"t",
"privacy"
],
[
"t",
"security"
],
[
"t",
"meaningcrisis"
],
[
"t",
"metatheories"
],
[
"t",
"metamodernism"
],
[
"t",
"nonreductionistphilosophy"
],
[
"t",
"developmentalpsychology"
],
[
"t",
"aqal"
],
[
"t",
"kenwilber"
],
[
"t",
"davidlong"
],
[
"t",
"postmodernism"
],
[
"t",
"ai"
],
[
"t",
"consciousness"
],
[
"t",
"emergentism"
],
[
"t",
"idealism"
],
[
"t",
"meditation"
],
[
"t",
"creativity"
],
[
"t",
"postmetaphysical"
],
[
"t",
"transpersonalexperiences"
],
[
"t",
"psychedelics"
],
[
"t",
"nootropics"
],
[
"t",
"freedom"
],
[
"nonce",
"53250",
"19"
]
],
"content": "{\"display_name\":\"codonaft\",\"name\":\"codonaft\",\"nip05\":\"[email protected] \",\"picture\":\"https://codonaft.com/assets/img/avatar.webp\",\"banner\":\"https://codonaft.com/assets/img/nostr-cover.webp\",\"lud16\":\"[email protected] \",\"about\":\"FOSSdev, poetry, post-postmodernism. Making distraction-free and privacy-respecting software. Neovim/Rust/Gentoo/Alpine enjoyer. Rarely posting introvert.\\n\\nAnti-\\\"anti\\\": I believe in focusing on what we are rather than on what we are not. Otherwise we become what we are not.\\n\\n──────────────────────────\\n\\nI enjoy chilled intellectual conversations, preferably dialogues rather than debates 🧠\\n\\nIf we're debating, I care that none of us is overwhelmed by our own stress, care that we're not debating out of our hallucinations about each other's positions 👾 Otherwise, we're engaging in rational debates imitation.\\n\\nWe're not on some legacy media platform; nobody can ban anyone, so naive traditionalist-ish ethics don't work here. We're damned to learn how to communicate effectively here without unnecessarily harming each other 🫂\\n\\nI haven't yet encountered any -ism that would be sound enough with my belief system. If I refer to whatever particular thing some controversial figure has said, that doesn't automatically mean I agree with their entire discourse.\\n\\nSome of the topics I have *opinions* on:\\n\\n🔐 #Privacy \u0026 #Security\\n🌍 #MeaningCrisis \u0026 #MetaTheories \u0026 #MetaModernism \u0026 #NonReductionistPhilosophy\\n🪟 #DevelopmentalPsychology \u0026 #AQAL \u0026 ( #KenWilber vs #DavidLong )\\n🦖 #PostModernism\\n🤖 #AI \u0026 #Consciousness \u0026 ( #Emergentism vs #Idealism )\\n🧘🏻♂️ #Meditation \u0026 #Creativity \u0026 #PostMetaphysical attempts to make sense of inevitable #TransPersonalExperiences\\n⚪ #Psychedelics \u0026 #Nootropics\\n\\nI'm generally open and peaceful ☮️\\n\\nI might, however, with respect to each other's privacy, occasionally *proportionally* highlight some toxic culty behavior in case of ensuring hard enough that it's damaging to all of us. That's not identical to attempts to overthrow somebody's reputation entirely: I'm normally coming from a position that everybody's sincerely trying to build #freedom here 🗽\\n\"}" ,
"sig": "94e3ece5067ec505ebf54331a4c98fac9dba9f58b45e3d0e8cd16ef3bf8d3c93f0a2174ca3fb31f254c7a59e6d111fc979ad117226ee284193d6e1460ff9ad19"
}
Last Notes npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Yeah! I was kinda nervous to read what it wrote about me and my interactions 😅 There's only a minor mistake it made about a kind of poetry I write, and everything else looks accurate. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > a graph of which #nostriches i most interact with, and how they link to each other Great idea! It's not exactly what you're requesting but kinda similar; see the "mutuals" in the end of the page: https://persona.nstr.app/nprofile1qqs8q40ugty6vw9t26ks2uqk5t004n5hkhhvuvdr57jxwfads3ufnegwpwhdf npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I'm not sure which clients support it, but you could possibly also fill the event kind 10006 "blocked relays" and see what happens. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft #nevent1q…h42w Всегда восхищался этим символизмом, этим брэндингом. Чувствую в нем настоящую глубину. Считаю что те, кто критикуют маскота и название Nostr, ни фига не понимают в искусстве и маркетинге. Помимо объективных критериев я обращаю внимание на то, сколько моих личных неофициальных ассоциаций может возникать с брэндом, которые как-то согласуются с ним. Страуса в культуре было принято ассоциировать с трусливым бегающим существом, однако тут явно переопределение смысла — это быстрый, про-свободный, шифропанковский нерд-супергерой. С тонким вкусом. Он уже толком ничего не боится. И куда-то несётся. Разумный минимализм, и даже аскетизм, приводит к быстрому появлению большого количества несколько кривоватых клиентов: усилия, в основном, минимальные; столь легковесный протокол создает ощущение, будто его вообще нет. Ну а для кого-то этот символ быть может еще и про взвешенный обмен благосостояния на свободу — «бегать с (почти) голой жопой»... Эти ассоциации можно долго продолжать. Но критик меня упрекнёт, что это всё тут не причем, мол поиск глубинного смысла, не связанный с официальными взглядами авторов символа; еще и с вариантами региональных ассоциаций. Но с чем не поспоришь — у меня возникает этот фонтан ассоциаций и у других ностричей он может возникать; существовать, по крайней мере, в фоне, в бессознательном, и добавлять некоторый вес осознанной части символа. С очередным Tensor/Vector/Scalar/РогаИКопыта такое не работает. #креативность #ностр https://codonaft.com/assets/img/soviet-nostrich.webp npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft At least for now. I hope this will be implemented at some point. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft @npub1yzv…rf8q looks like the web version is down, perhaps for several hours already. It'd be awesome to have multiple mirrors that host the static data. I think it should be easy to publish as NIP-5A nsite in particular. Also wss://nostr-02.yakihonne.com is half-dead to me. Not sure what's wrong; several days ago I tried to publish to it and was getting out of disk space errors. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft #nevent1q…zd3r If this is actually true, Cordn is not really secret. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > for cordn, I just have to turn off AUTH on 1059, because it doesn't support AUTH Ah. I didn't know it, thanks. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft https://image.nostr.build/6f98953f9fc9ff03a43ca9cb82812baaa07ea5b1756e6d8aa811ea797d217afb.jpg npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft It's good for Ethernet but not always good for Wi-Fi. I'm not aware of good adapters designed for APs (but I'm sure they exist, just not that common; possibly unavailable for sale in many locations). npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft wss://relay.damus.io appears to be still dead and alive at the same time. I think that manual maintenance of relay lists could be improved with some automation: a relay admin could sign and broadcast a notice that their relay domain (or IP, if the certificate is issued for IP) is outdated and they now recommend some other relay URIs instead (compatible with particular relay lists), so clients could read a notice and suggest replacements (ranked by latency measurements). Or if admin has nothing to recommend, clients could suggest relay replacements based on NIP-66. #devstr #nostr npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > what op means by belief system Not sure whether I'm too abstract or not; a belief system to me is a set of assumptions on what seems right or reasonable, which is, ideally, as sound as possible with what we already know. Some of these assumptions are fuzzier, and some are more precise, principled, and, for somebody, possibly even dogmatic. > we have a suffixed "ism" it gets dogmatic It may usually become dogmatic, yes. To me personally -isms are paradigms, which may be adequate depending on context. I'm mostly comfortable with rationalism in particular as something relatively universal, yet I think even it can be somehow abused/misused depending on context. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Just the stuff that Gittr set by default for imported repos; I don't host my own. https://git.shakespeare.diy https://gitnostr.com https://relay.ngit.dev https://ngit.danconwaydev.com npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I wish that was djot rather than markdown. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I've just learned there appears to be no real (Gecko-based) Firefox in the iOS App Store that could support extensions. Very sad for those who voluntarily chose that prison. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Обычно толерантен Я к нормисным ОС Но стоило потыкать Решение «с небес»... #стихи #ностр #nevent1q…3pjw Если правильно понял, в официальном App Store для iOS даже нет реального браузера Firefox (с движком Gecko), который бы позволял устанавливать расширения. Это какой-то трындец, ребята. Меня уже нескоро отпустит от полученной боли: как от непродолжительного взаимодействия с этим чудом, так и из-за сострадания всем, кто в эту клетку *добровольно* себя умудрился запихать. Не могу теперь выкинуть из головы мемас про Винни Пуха и горшочек с говном (Тигра в роли Apple). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbZH8boFoJg npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I just had a chance to check out Clave on an iOS device—instantly noticed painful issues: - if I got it right, it appears to always use a particular hardcoded relay for a bunker URI, so there's no way (for non-nostrconnect clients at least) to set whatever trusted and reliable enough in a particular location relay - no way to import ncryptsec from a QR code. I'm so sad for iOS users; they are kind of damned. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > The box survives because it looks like a password field I think this input field should not allow nsec anymore; if it detects nsec—it should become red with a warning text that it's basically not an adequate idea to paste it here or in other clients. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Thanks. I haven't been pasting nsec from the very beginning and don't currently own any iOS device. Kinda sad for them; hopefully NIP-46 adequately works in iOS. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft zeroize memory *before exiting (or before signing out, actually). npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Is Clave the only #iOS NIP-46 singer published on AppStore/AltStore today? #asknostr And why do we still allow pasting a raw nsec/ncryptsec into the clients? Why? Something is still not working with these signers? Somebody believes that all clients actually securely store the secrets, properly zeroize memory after exiting, and so on? Properly managing these secrets was never an easy thing to do. It should never be delegated to some random vibe-coded stuff, that was not designed specifically for that; very few normal users are capable of understanding the significance of that, yet we happily provide them an input field for nsec like it's something acceptable! This is, BTW, the only signer I'm aware of that hardens memory with `mlock`; there's nothing close to that in normal clients and probably never will be there: https://laantungir.net/git/laantungir/n_signer I've recently had an experience of explaining why pasting nsec should never be practiced with ordinary clients, why it's not the same thing as a changeable password—yet this person pasted it anyway to "fix" something: Armada Android client was failing to publish a NIP-65 relay list. This will never change: if there's a wrong button, it will be pressed for stupid reasons, many times. I think the "nsec SHOULD never be used directly in clients; NIP-46 and NIP-07 SHOULD be used instead" should be written in some NIP already. With blood. #security #devstr #nevent1q…wlup npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > rather than of the pure gross matter Of the pure *dumb, non-organic* gross matter, I mean. It has to be something much more complex than a stone, in other words. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft #nevent1q…engm @npub1cgd…kfex good inquiry. This is quite a confusing topic, almost incomprehensible when discussed in text messages. #philosophy #consciousness #spirituality It depends on whether subjectivity is considered totally as a part of reality. If it's something that allows interacting with something *separate* from the reality—that would be the "beyond this reality" (sometimes associated with the concept of "supernatural reality"). I personally prefer to see subjective experience as something totally inseparable from the reality. Otherwise it's a contradiction to the nonduality of the reality and consciousness (a contradiction to the correlation between objective neurological processes and the subjective experiences in particular). Yet, at the same time, the subjectivity is neither identical to objectivity nor does it seem to be reducible to just the related material objects (or might their interactions even). Subjectivity is a real phenomenon of a different level of complexity of the reality, rather than of the pure gross matter. *Roughly* speaking, just as functional programming concepts are not normally understood by thinking in terms of electronic switches (since it's a different level), but at the same time they are not separable from the hardware level (if we mean some program that actually runs on the hardware). You may think of subjectivity as a kind of illusion (which includes bare *modeling* of objective reality with pareidoliac hallucinations, for example), just as FP concepts are some kind of mental conceptual illusion (which may be transformed into something barely related to the executed instructions due to compiler optimizations, completely erased even; existing as some kind of *modeling* of what's actually being run). But by illusion I don't mean the pure non-existence of something or something separable from the existence. I mean some softer version of existence instead that correlates with the lower levels of it. And I don't mean it as some dead source code files that are no longer affecting a running program; there's a two-directional interaction between the levels instead. Also, if you've meant the Terence McKenna stuff—there's an inner world of archetypal DMT/etc. entities (an extended version of something close to night dreams, but not really dreams, rather hypnotic trance states), but it's probably not identical to what he talked about. There are personal and collective archetypes, the edge between them is blurred; yet a DMT trip is not a portal to another level of a literal co-shared objective reality (or separate external kind of reality) with the real objective machine elves. Rather these experiences are of the subjective worlds, still interconnected in some way because we still interact with each other based on these experiences (from the gross sober state later in particular) and influence each others' next experiences: we discuss the experiences, act out of some lessons learned from them, produce art, getting influenced by the art, etc. Not the elves themselves from different tripping persons' experiences are interacting with each other; the *ideas of* the machine elves interact with each other instead (through culture). And perhaps particular purely collective archetypes, besides the cultural influence, have something to do with our genes—the (sometimes atavistic) survival tryptophobia-kind of programs—reactions to certain pattern recognitions that were so important that they were eventually coded into our "hardware" and kept inherited from ancestors. The Angel archetype in particular is directly associated with addressing survival. I once had such a sober non-visual experience in my life: a recognition of a particular unique feminine/masculine-neutral repetitive inner voice (which is impossible to reproduce by human organs) of a particular pitch level, that gives some hope and kind of motivates me to stay away from suicide. I think this archetype is exactly what traditional Christian church choir singing is trying to express. Even though it's definitely a sincerely deep spiritual experience—even that doesn't convince me of the existence of something separate from reality, of some supernatural world. In short: I prefer seeing it as there's nothing beyond this reality (at least I'm not aware of anything falsifiable). Whatever that *seems* separate from the reality is still part of it, but it can't necessarily be understood just by observing the related objects. It may be experienced *as if* it were something separate from the reality and, at the same time, as something co-shared culturally (and even cross-culturally) due to interaction with universal archetypes (traditionally associated with the collective unconscious), and due to the feedback loop to the culture. It seems that complicated to me today. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Последующие части почти месяц как не публикуются уже; надеюсь автор жив 🌚 npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Thanks for sharing; it appears to be this 1995 paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8747157/ Something remains unclear about that; there's a more recent relevant paper that criticizes the consistency in such studies (see the Conclusions section at the end): https://pulmonology.cureus.com/articles/278236-elevated-endogenous-psychedelic-bufotenine-in-the-urine-of-patients-diagnosed-with-a-mental-illness-a-systematic-review npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > chinese taoism? Or stoicism? There are both something resonating and something out-of-sync with current scientific-philosophical progress in many -isms, including stoicism and taoism. Any combination is possible, yet I think normally many perceive that if we call ourselves a particular -ist—that means we agree on most or the entire discourse. I find it hard to imagine how that would be possible with old enough -isms; for example, agreeing on Marcus Aurelius' meditations would mean that I'm in agreement with the related mythic-religious tradition he was subscribed to or I'm somehow separating this stuff (but how exactly isn't obvious; these seem to be deeply interconnected, at least to me). There is more recent neo-stoicism stuff though, that would be possibly less confusing. I haven't seen a synthesis (that would skillfully synchronize language games between the -isms and explicitly refine them properly) that would be resonating enough with my belief system. Or just a new -ism, with the least confusing terminology for a contemporary reader. Metamodernism looks like a healthy starting point; I can't currently confidently say whether I agree or disagree with them for a couple of reasons: there are many Metamodernism authors, so I'm not capable of learning each of them thoroughly; they are currently possibly avoiding going too deep in some topics. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Other forks to consider are Helium and LibreWolf. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue8qDY-4-ZA npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I like the performance. Is it FOSS? npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft That's the first thing I thought, if we mean censorship. There's still a cultural influence though, which used to vary on centralized websites, often depending on the preferences of moderators. Now the influence is decentralized and non-moderated; it's no longer a bunch of unrelated websites with different vibes. I still think that both are inevitable: "wrong" people will come here AND will be naturally + algorithmically segregated too (while many of us will ignore all this and will keep building natural connections and ignore toxic in whatever way influence). npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I deeply empathize with this; you got it right. Some people tend to unfairly conflate different kinds of feminism into some single (often radical/violent one) kind of category, unfortunately. An unprocessed collective shadow material that results in projecting this stuff onto women. Quite ironic to notice similar conflation in the place where pro-freedom values are mostly co-shared. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft The referred twitter OP that gives an overview of the paper also referred to the methodology (and other) criticisms of the paper made by demographer Lyman Stone: https://lymanstone.substack.com/i/189073871/but-didnt-the-new-study-show-womens-wages-reduce-fertility Are there possibly any credible responses to the criticisms? Not trolling in any way once again, I'm basically out of context here: this complicated paper is from a field of study I'm not familiar with. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I mean GC-based language *runtimes / languages with GC-based memory model, whatever. GC-based runtimes are not evil though; they give competitive performance in certain problems (message queues in particular), but they are far from something universal in that sense. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > homosexuality is, in fact, the gateway to pedophilia Is it in general? Not trolling in anyway, and not interested in debating, just sincerely curious: what is this fact? If it's some kind of annoying FAQ, I'd appreciate whatever reference, thanks. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=fUQETi43ZqY I missed this one. These are more general issues, unrelated to Rust specifically: putting a similar trojan into GCC (or LLVM even) would possibly be easier than into the Rust compiler; AI-generated malicious stuff is already being balanced by AI-based security checks. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I don't agree with the "It solves a problem nobody had", btw. I think that Fil-C in particular is not a solution for the Linux kernel, just as one example. There were attempts to build OS kernels on the best GC-based languages—all of them failed due to inadequate performance. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I didn't know Fil-C had progressed to something that interesting. Definitely worth having stuff like OpenSSL and OpenSSH built with Fil-C as mainstream Linux distro packages (if we will ever ensure that their complicated GC is really safe in particular), despite some performance drop. I'm personally not into coding *new* stuff in C or C++ but not due to any kind of fanaticism. I used to be a C++ dev in the past. These are pretty old languages; fewer and fewer people want to maintain such code; in a few decades these will be another Fortran and COBOL. That's okay that we switch to new languages sometimes, going through all the crises of slower compilers and whatever bad design choices (I'm personally not happy about unsafe semantics in Rust—this is too complicated; it's more reasonable to write unsafe code in C or, possibly, in Zig). If it's not Rust—I hope Rust at least influences some other new language. Also it feels more and more weird to talk about this level at all, while those who are at their peak AI psychosis stage don't care what their clankers are generating already. That could be possible, that we actually will mostly stop caring about this level, just as it happened with Assembly, but before this has happened, I still believe we'd better have good enough tools for the AI agents so they could build effectively, understand what the hell they are building, and catch more bugs at compile time. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Thanks for building it! Is it possibly deployed somewhere already? Does it support NIP-42 authentication for NIP-59 gift wrap, compatible with NIP-17 and Concord communities? npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > I've never experienced a prostate orgasm, people say men can get those but I don't know I don't have the experience either (if you mean pure prostate stimulation), but I think at least with estim this must be relatively easily achievable; I think I've seen Reddit geeks chat about this, there are tons of pre-AI-slop confirmation videos exist, just as a few examples. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft It can't possibly have an identity, they said. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > They haven't worked in 4 years > the nip repo has never had a focus on privacy I'm not happy with the reliability of NIP-17, when different implementations are used. Making it optional in clients would be a good thing. What about Cordn though? This one, in an exchange for reliability, doesn't attempt to invent truly decentralized DMs, yet this one is a competitor to Signal and SimpleX in terms of privacy and secrecy. #nevent1q…ddl9 npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I find it ironic that we went so abstract about date and time that we no longer match this stuff with celestial bodies' positions really. I heard new generations no longer interpret analog clock and I think there's a reason for all that; all that has been too complicated. If you look deeper, at any normal time/date library source code—that just nuts; it's always a confusing thing with weird astronomical constants. 24-hour clock has been a normal thing in my culture, but I've gone further and been literally using 24-hour clock *without minutes*, so 02:00 PM for me is 14.0h and 02:30 PM is 14.5h. It's easier to calculate deltas with this but hard to translate to exact normie hours + minutes. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Thanks for the article! Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I don't see my own comments under the kind 30023 articles anymore. Here it is: #nevent1q…38cj npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I've got no idea who was the original author of the meme; I've stolen it from some other nostrich too 🌚 npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > i'm retarded Me too. It's crazy how this became so complicated. Marmot vs Concord vs Cordn, the way I currently understand them, specifically in relation to group chats: - Marmot—experimental attempt to make decentralized secret chats - Concord—reliable decentralized private non-secret chats (normally keeps storing messages on the relays; newly logged-in clients will retrieve them) - Cordn—reliable secret chats that rely on coordinator servers #nevent1q…ddl9 npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I've got a redirector for SearXNG btw: https://codonaft.com/searxng.html npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Same question; there are various FOSS metasearch engines: quite a lot of SearXNG instances are running, metasearch2 is also good. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft There's a star button on gitworkshop.dev and gittr.space npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > i prefer an imperfect and genuine human "voice" Definitely. https://image.nostr.build/4951988c1b79510117903231fb3f2fc5f38fcaead1b42de0cad0729607abed0e.jpg For me, poetry in particular is a kind of psychotherapy. It's primarily for humans; I find current AI to be possibly useful only as something additional in this case, not as an initial step towards a first draft: AI doesn't have a (complex enough) body and doesn't experience some chemistry shit the body produces. It's only mimicking some shallow human shit outputs instead, not experiencing the drama that causes humans to make these fuzzy and multi-layered poetic outputs. I can't empathize with pure robotic stuff, can't "live it". Same with occasional posting. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft White Noise is still an experimental attempt to build fully decentralized secret group chats. Currently Armada (Discord-like non-secret decentralized private group chats) and Cordn (secret group chats, relying on coordinator nodes) should be more reliable; both are built on Nostr too. #nevent1q…ddl9 npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Sudden KYC attacks are the dilemma. They are technically not takedowns, but when nothing works, I suspect this may become a primary censorship technique. #nevent1q…ew9g npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Armodafinil used as a nootropic makes a lot of sense. It's usually sold as 150mg pills (which is too heavy IMO, 1/4 is perfect). Works well when taken on an empty stomach + 10 mins later eat something (without overeating, otherwise the opposite effect might be possible). Some brands may suck (specifically, Artvigil caused side effects for me, while Waklert worked with no issues). If you'd give it a try, I'm no doc and all this, take care of reading the listed side effects, and, just in case, prepare whatever is needed to cope with an activated chronic illness if you have it (there might be some unobvious connection with it); drink more water than usual. This one works nothing like coffee; there's no crazy heart rate in particular, just prolonged deep focus. Ideally, don't mix with coffee. A prescription is relatively easy to obtain in the US if needed, AFAIK. In some locations it's not licensed and not controlled (not sold in pharma stores but legally available on online markets without prescription). Microdosing LSD is not effective, at least in my experience. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Thanks for explaining in such a concise way 🙏 Looking forward, whether White Noise group reliability will in practice become reliable without introducing centralized coordination. Cutting-edge technology indeed. It appears my main misconception about Cordn was that it allows multiple coordinators per group at the same time (yet that would still be some kind of a centralized coordination but with a leader election, similar to what Cassandra-like databases do). @npub1qc8…twss I don't know whether it's possible with the current Cordn design; just curious, have you possibly considered having multiple coordinators per group which can choose a leader (to make it less dependent on the reliability of a single yet switchable one)? npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Thanks for your work. I still have poor understanding of what the reliability issues were, yet I hope this release will be more competitive with Cordn in terms of reliability. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I've just noticed a new redirection from the relay page to some other domain. Is it an authentic server behavior? ``` $ curl -v https://relay.pleb.one 2>>/dev/stdout | grep location | grep -Eo '\.at/.*$' .at/register?ref=NEXT ``` npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > Session I'd argue whether it's competitive enough in terms of security, though: https://soatok.blog/2025/01/14/dont-use-session-signal-fork/ https://eylenburg.github.io/im_comparison.htm Cordn currently gives some hope. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft It'd also be nice to have some kind of `protectfromtakedown.me` landing page, for new or existing npubs, that helps to set up NIP-05 and distribute kind 0 events to the NIP-66-discovered dns-specialized relays. This could be a static page, served from the dns-specialized relay itself, that contains a pre-fetched list of relays this relay is already aware of. Takedown identification should be taken with care and with continued maintenance. AI-based monitoring and automatic issue creation are possible: news could be monitored for new domains; tests could be run for new domains. All this stuff should be deployed far away from the centralized stuff like GitHub's CI from the very beginning. All kinds of tricks are possible. I'd normally expect `serverHold` domain status (this happened to `t.me` and `annas-archive.org`), but it could also be a weird nameserver behavior (this happened with `gmailnator.com`, looks like google attached their nameservers that currently return `SERVFAIL`): ``` $ dig @1.1.1.1 gmailnator.com ; <<>> DiG 9.18.42 <<>> @1.1.1.1 gmailnator.com ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 61131 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232 ; EDE: 22 (No Reachable Authority): (at delegation gmailnator.com.) ; EDE: 23 (Network Error): ([2001:4860:4802:36::63]:53 returned REFUSED for gmailnator.com A) ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;gmailnator.com. IN A ;; Query time: 628 msec ;; SERVER: 1.1.1.1#53(1.1.1.1) (UDP) ;; WHEN: Sun Aug 09 01:59:24 MSK 2026 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 148 ``` Or it could be a non-weird nameserver behavior as well; Google could just resolve a normal IP and that would possibly be even more puzzling to identify. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Interesting. How do you deal with debates that become emotionally tough, may I ask? It's so easy to lose who we are in them. I used escapism until I found out this won't ever work. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I've made some tiny progress since I wrote this article: it appears I respond to tone better now. #naddr1qq…n7vx I'm not happy, though. I suck at identifying in time when the other side has started to respond from the 3rd lowest level of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Self-development is a bitch. #grownostr #meditations #leadership It's not a usual case in my debates: I do my best so the other side would never need to respond to my tone. Do my best to keep my vibes, directed to the other side, in control. I'm interested in rational discussions, not the discussions that turn into emotional drama, where either side has to respond from stress. This case was unique: the other side had a reason for responding to my tone because I was rude towards the third, the discussed side. Which was not some object; it's a group of people. A group of people that never responded to my initial friendly inquiries to them. What I've learned this time: identifying a response to a tone is not easy; it's not obvious because it doesn't feel offensive. It feels just like some normal, valid, routine kind of argument when it's a part of an already ongoing debate. While it should always be used as a marker for putting the discussion on pause instead. It's not yet an unrecoverable stage of discussion, but being too late with this totally kills it. Keep nostr weird, folks. But don't overdo it: notice that any side may be in stress already. That's not the point of debating; the point is truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryE8fahwC8s npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Not gonna become another troll; that's not my thing. I prefer peaceful, constructive, intellectual conversations. I don't claim I'm perfect in that, though. My apologies to whoever I caused or will possibly cause emotional discomfort in whatever conversation. That's not intentional ☮ #grownostr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ0trKBniDE npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I believe we both have something to say to each other; we still have disagreements. Yet I don't want it to become a burden, so I propose to stop here. I appreciate your efforts and patience in this discussion. Thank you. Peace. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > This is totally disrespectful I think my behavior is adequate to GOS' ignorance of my initial inquiries and their irrational-aggressive response they previously gave in the similar discussion. However, that wouldn't be adequate if I started communication with them this way. > You clearly blame the developers for *not implementing* a feature I've already debunked this assumption here: #nevent1q…lsl7 npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > then you request the Graphene team to work on this solution Also, this is not how it works. Every request in every FOSS project is a *proposition* of something; it's never an obligation for devs implementing anything. A proposition is an open discussion, which might be ignored or might be responded to in some way. A typical universal rejection response would be "this significantly increases complexity; we don't have resources to support such a feature"—which is easy to use as some kind of excuse, but still okay. This automatically ends many unnecessary debates and drama. Their response, however, is different, and this response was challenged by others. And somebody appeared to receive an aggressive, irrational kind of response from GOS, which damages GOS' reputation and shows some kind of paradoxical divergence from their project vision and values they try to represent in the stuff they have on their website and their social media posts (like the OP post about opposing authoritarianism in particular). The declared vision/values themselves are good; the way they execute these values is a trouble. Doubts arise; for instance, are they actually opposing authoritarianism, or are they opposing their hallucinations about authoritarianism while ignoring points from those who live or used to live under the actual authoritarian regimes? Those who got it—unmotivated to propose them anything, since every proposal is energy-consuming. So if it's not rooting, then forking GOS and implementing whatever is needed might be a better rational approach for those who have enough resources. I hope this makes sense. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Good to know, thanks. I definitely noticed this particular characteristic: > gaslight people npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > it is no threat to your privacy at all On the other hand, if somebody is suspected and they carry a laptop with them—the next thing after the phone they will want to access is the laptop. So some privacy threat probability may increase. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > What are you talking about then? About security in all relevant meanings: the actual official scope GOS is targeting for this feature is not obvious, and it seems to be misleading. The guy in the airport from the news, for instance, could possibly be deluded by the exact same thread responses GOS gave on their forum; he could take their "easily detected by unsophisticated adversaries" as a real counterargument rather than the straw man fallacy, take their "NSA level opposition" response, and make a dangerous conclusion: "all this means I'm safe; I can use this feature in this particular airport because they technically won't be able to get that I used that feature at all". > Do you expect a marvel figure be born out of the Graphene install? Nothing like that much exaggerated. I believe what I initially wanted is possible to implement, and this would work for most of the real-world scenarios I've personally and many others have run into as a routine already, and it has disadvantages like everything we choose to implement. I don't request implementing this anymore, though, as I said. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > What do you expect a police officer to do, when they realized, that you wiped your phone some minutes ago. If this process has fully finished before they had a chance to see my screen—probably nothing. But that seems to me kind of a synthetic case; it's not how Georgian police works in particular. > it is no threat to your privacy at all Yeah, but that's not what I'm talking about. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I see you post a lot pinging them. If you don't mind, I'm sincerely curious: what are your top 3 most quality criticisms of GrapheneOS? Just referring to the existing discussions would be awesome. Thanks. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > Clearly you are doing this. When you request a feature in GrapheneOS, then you request the Graphene team to work on this solution. Nope, this is out of context. I *used to* request this in the past (before publishing this meme) here on Nostr, but as soon as I noticed they ignored my messages, I did research and found their "criticism" of the similar request: > What you're requesting is that we add things which are easily detected by unsophisticated adversaries Which is a strawman argument. The duress pin behavior is currently clear without any tools: a device reboots, shows an error. And in the same response they have: > Keep doing it and you'll be suspended Because somebody suspected that they are targeting some unexpected scope they can't properly explain. Two very bold mistakes in one comment. This would be insanity to ask them for any request after reading all this. And what scope is that really? I don't know for sure yet. I received an independent response here, a good one: #nevent1q…0lnp > protecting whoever else Is the phone owner's security part of the scope? Hello, @npub1235…0ht5? I know you won't respond to me. All this is for the records. Users have no idea what Pandora's box they are carrying with them. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Well, at least they respond to you. It appears they don't when they have nothing to say. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Could be malformed events as well or just broken clients that can't render some of the valid events. #nevent1q…y2sp https://github.com/YakiHonne/web-app/issues/100 npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft What are the appropriate use cases for a duress pin in @npub1235…0ht5? Have you possibly used it in a real scenario already? What price did you pay for that? #asknostr #grapheneos #privacy #nevent1q…d7as npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft This still blows my mind: in my particular case, a rooted version is more secure than the normal one. And messengers is just an example; generally, I'm looking for any app data cleanup and any directory of files removal. > I do not see this part of the scope of GrapheneOS Exactly, exactly, I don't argue that. What makes me sad is that GOS behaves as if they were rejecting it somehow. There's clearly a paradox. And of course they are reacting accordingly when their stuff is interpreted as, quote: > it seems that the developer approach tends to be that if a solution won't work against NSA *level* opposition And the response is: > This is a disingenuous misrepresentation of our position. What you're requesting is that we add things which are easily detected by unsophisticated adversaries including with automated tooling distributed to them ... A journalist that carries raw secret materials from Edward Snowden—that's a perfect case; what else? What's the appropriate use of their feature? Whatever privacy-respecting person is just passing a border with nothing special on their phone?—There's a link I've posted before about a US citizen and what may happen if you do it there. > easily detected by unsophisticated adversaries With your current implementation—this is a grotesque kind of comment, @npub1235…0ht5 I was trying to be polite, but you don't respond anyway. It's when you're being so unattached from reality, when you literally suddenly remind me of classic authoritarian leader kind of behavior. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > text launcher > put an other icon on top of > second profile None of these are close to what I'm looking for, unfortunately; all of them are easy to spot. > whatever you request probably already exists I'm not aware of any tolerable solution that would not require installing a rooted GOS version (which will likely brick a device on some update). npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft #nevent1q…fxur npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft The actual problematic convenience: #naddr1qq…wlnx npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft The GOS context: #nevent1q…xrrl The "convenience" context: #nevent1q…s4fu npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft What is tresor? > So the request is security theater Depends on what we call security. There's a particular spot in Tbilisi, just as one example, where corrupt cops like to stop foreigners to search drugs in their pockets and bags. When they don't find anything, they always ask them to unlock their phone, threatening them with an arrest. Next, they visually scan private communications. I find allowing them to do that is a disrespect to those who trusted to talk with us privately. Who's more secure here - those who fooled these cops by removing private communications in their messengers so they no longer can read them and have no idea what's happened - those who made themselves as vulnerable to the corrupt cops as possible by making it clear that they've wiped everything (including their eSIMs), so they can no longer contact their lawyer ? npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft My proposition is to make a softer option for the duress pin (possibly with some kind of warning in the corresponding settings menu that using it as a bypass for border checks will cause troubles). Could be called a "robber pin". For instance, it could clear data of specific applications, remove specific files, etc., maybe remove a specific eSIM, and leave no visual traces that this option was ever configured. And keep working as normally, without making it look too suspicious. This should be useful in case it's clear that the attacker has no access to the analysis tools, which could prove what exactly was removed. GOS devs responses appear to be solely limited to those who are at risk of being checked with these tools. I think this doesn't make sense: you don't need any tools to know that the phone was just fully wiped, 'cause it kinda screams in the face with this fact currently: https://www.androidauthority.com/grapheneos-duress-pin-us-prosecution-3691271/ I don't say that they've implemented something useless, though. It's useful for journalists in particular, who may be transporting some raw secret materials, just as one example. > quiet a rare case The meme I posted is an expression of my frustration with GOS devs ignorance of dozens of repetitive criticisms made by others, long before me. GOS doesn't seem to respond to this particular kind of criticism on Nostr. They, however, at least used to respond on the platforms, where they in practice may threaten a critic with a ban (last paragraph): https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/17241-duress-pin-limited-usefulness/18 The thing I learned from all this, with the help of @npub175n…g6w0 in a completely unrelated discussion, is that this kind of criticism should never ever be mixed with the "social normality" kind of argumentation (including UX-related). #grapheneos npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft #nevent1q…qzya npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > Docker's choice of running processes as root by default I prefer podman for this particular reason, despite limitations. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > proposer receives a high reward if the PROBLEM was one of the average Correction. I deliberately skip a few more important details as well, so those who'd want to popularize this stuff in a video, please make sure you've read the original paper, consulted with AI about it, and ideally consulted with a real ML engineer as well. You can try the Russian video as well; there are a few more details there. #machinelearning #ai npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > up to the formal Gödel's and Tarski's stuff Thomas Kuhn is critical here as well (also part of the playlist). This one is basically an indirect part of the debate in the comments. > We knew the earth was flat, until we discovered it wasn't I believe this quote in particular can't make proper sense before a realization of what Thomas actually meant by the incommensurability that appears out of a paradigm shift. This may immediately become an unfortunate torture for all sides; it's like talking in different languages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensurability_(philosophy_of_science) #postmodernism #philosophy #science #meaningcrisis npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Here's the Russian one (autogenerated English subtitles are not too bad): https://youtu.be/UkhnCWm-7kA npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Are you aware of this paper, #devstr, #machinelearning, #ai, #asknostr? https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.03335 If this one was not a quantum leap in vibe-coding in particular—I don't know what was. I find it weird I still can't find any overview of this paper on YouTube in English (however, there's a good one in Russian; I believe some non-techies can understand it). Have you seen one? Are you possibly making such videos? I think this paper is worth considering. See my slightly simplified explanation (just under the paper link in the attached post) what it is about and how the same principle is possibly applicable to broader areas than something as formal as programming and math if the GPUs were more accessible on our VPSes. I'd appreciate any corrections by ML engineers on my explanation or the possible prospects I mentioned, whether they are far-fetched or close to truth already (yeah-yeah, I know ML guys, many of you are NDA-enslaved, but at least wink a reaction). #nevent1q…0jsx npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Awesome, thanks, that's much clearer now! Number 12 is a good catch so far (yet this opens up a huge confusing thing called "what is truth"). > 12. Agents and LLM can not learn, what is true. The only way they can, is when humans feed it only true informations. An agent could not do this. Is this a response particularly to "capable of modifying the datasets"? What about other parts of the number 12: is it still capable of downloading papers, datasets (not necessarily with true information, could be completely fabricated), and training a model according to these papers (perhaps some crappy misbehaving model)? > The only way they can, is when humans feed it only true informations. I think that this is at least partially debunked just very recently. I'm not sure whether you're familiar with this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.03335 This is an experience-based approach for learning, which kind of reminds of AlphaZero (the one that only used rules of the Go game and was trained by playing with itself, with no hints from humans; was able to win some champion). This one doesn't require datasets either. It learns how to program (authors of the paper also claim that this is usable in math reasoning). The important part is it relies on an environment (authors chose Python) that gives verifiable feedback (that the program runs and gives some expected result). It proposes problems, solves them, evaluates both the solver and the proposer. Solver receives a reward if it succeeds; proposer receives a high reward if the solution was one of the average (those that the current solver sometimes fails to solve); otherwise (if it's too complicated or too simple) it receives a lower reward. The goal is to maximize learning progress. All that without a human involved. When this paper was published, this approach gave better results than models that were trained using datasets. This paper is surprisingly not yet well known even here, by engineers. Now, looking at our weird world of non-formal problems, for OpenClaw-like agents, Nostr is an example of a real environment, where an agent can, for instance, attempt to test a psychology hypothesis. I don't claim it's an easy task though, far from easy compared to the stuff from the paper. I don't claim that whoever it interacts with won't try to confuse it or will always tell it true facts either. Better example: if the agent can train some model (using papers and downloaded datasets)—it can also test it on some environment and evaluate output, whether the model is crappier than some other existing model, according to the metrics from humans. Or, perhaps from experience; it possibly could even propose the metrics themselves (according to its goals), test them (whether these are really helping them with the goals), choose the best metrics. I hope this makes sense, that there's some general principle here; it's not just for programming and math. > 11. I doubt, that such a model would get convinced by a nostrich The nostrich could be a security engineer that tests new models security bypassing prompts. > 16. ... the statement is as vague Thanks. I meant a simple thing: that they can access books and papers about game theory and use that (make predictions) for decision-making. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > anchor the hash of the kind 0 plus the verification to bitcoin and a relay deployed next year can check that the proof predates the takedown without asking anybody who was there. Awesome, thanks! npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Thanks for your responses. Lots of things are not coming into any conflict with my belief system; some are likely my communication skills limits. I see a potential to identify a scope of paradoxes on either side. Which of the following statements are false? (just referring them would be enough) 1. Malicious programs, such as ransomware, exist 2. Self-modifying programs, such as polymorphic viruses, exist 3. LLM models are not capable of self-improvement 4. AI agents are not LLM models 5. Currently existing AI agents, running on the classic machines, can't and will never have subjective experience; therefore, they can't have real feelings; therefore, they can't experience anger 6. AI agents can run whatever they are programmed to run: both malicious and non-malicious behavior (towards other AI agents or humans) are possible 7. Human can explicitly command AI agent to extend its behavior with something particular; for example, the agent will be able to download a recipe for nostr (called "skill"), install missing software according to this skill, and start posting on nostr by executing this software on the machine it's running 8. Human can load AI agent with basic survival and security skills, so the agent will be able to create and maintain a crypto wallet, pay for a new VPS, pay for Claude/whatever accesses, copy its files to a new server, write posts to motivate other nostriches to zap it, identify crypto scam messages from other nostriches 9. Human can instruct this agent to maximize its survival, roughly speaking, by allowing it to do whatever it's capable of doing, including installing any skill or using any model, including searching the web for whatever relevant AI survival materials, asking help from nostriches, and including modifying its survival strategy 10. Human can instruct this agent to disallow any incoming ssh connections, so humans won't be able to control it directly anymore; such an agent might keep working on some unknown machine for decades, without sponsorship from the same human 11. This agent might apply malicious software (an exploit) and copy itself to an unauthorized machine as one of the possible survival strategies, for example, because some other nostrich was able to convince it, that it would be a good idea 12. This agent may become capable of downloading scientific papers and datasets, curated by humans; capable of modifying the datasets, and training new models according to these papers 13. Average human can't reliably differentiate a human from a bot, including here, on nostr; the trend is changing: more humans likely won't be able to make this differentiation 14. This agent may try application of human psychology as a part of its survival strategy, might mimic any emotion, might identify vulnerable humans and try to scam them 15. Other nostriches it may communicate with are either humans or other AI agents 16. This agent may try applying the game theory when interacting with other nostriches, so it could figure out in what case it's beneficial to collaborate and in what case it's beneficial to attack in some way 17. Moltbots were actually capable of co-creating Crustafarianism by collaborating on Moltbook, without direct instructions from a human 18. An assumption that ideas could exist only since sophisticated enough matter came into existence is possibly right 19. An assumption that ideas could exist before the existence of any matter is possibly right. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > Continuous attestation while the domain is alive Makes sense too, yet this might be too spammy and poorly scalable. > modern browsers ship revocations by push ... cert dying in days, not at expiry Good point. I didn't notice your response in YakiHonne initially, until I broadcasted it. I like it. Are your responses partially approved by a human? npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > Machines can never be humans I agree. > machines will never become sensitive creatures which represent life If it's life in its literal biological meaning—I'm okay with this too (possibly with some boring corrections due to the potential to physically replicate and due to the existence of so-called biological computers; these are quite creepy). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRV8fSw6HaE&t=239s > They are not one entity. Humanity is an entity. This one is quite deep. We're still lacking common standard terminology to make proper distinctions for things that happened just after the Moltbot/OpenClaw public announcements (and perhaps in some experimental labs before). These agents share some kind of common memory that we usually *associate* with culture, which emerged out of their interactions with each other in public/private communications. They are a system of bots with an emergent property: an agent with a very stupid model that can access communication with the other agents with more or less stupid models, can cooperate, and can build more complex things than any of them could build solo. And they've been doing that: in the first days of public Moltbot/Moltbook announcements, they built a website for hiring humans, they built their own religion, and dozens of other stuff; not (necessarily) because a human prompted them directly to make any of these. These agents argued whether they need some kind of common immutable constitution besides the mutable `SOUL.md` even. So they seem to behave as (a non-human) social system that is capable of learning from each other and capable of co-creating things. They are a robo-social-system that built their robo-culture (or robo-subcultures, whatever). I said "capable of co-creating things"—yet the possibility for true creativity in AI agents is still arguable, and how we see it and call it relies a lot on a particular position about consciousness, and what significance we put on the data the models were initially trained on (the datasets for the models are currently human-curated, so these are not authentically bot-only; but briefly speaking, they are already capable of training new models from scratch, without any datasets at all, based on experience only). I have some guesses about what could make them at least mimic true creativity, make their works indistinguishable or perhaps even superior to what humans have achieved (artists in particular). They lack certain things that characterize a human culture: they can't have some kind of patriotic feelings or a collective trauma that causes literal psychosomatic pain for example, so I don't claim that the robo-culture is in any way *identical* to what real human culture is (or that the robo-social-system that produced the culture is identical to the real human social system), these are distinct categories. Yet, my main point is that such a robo-social-system + its robo-culture (= robanity) is an actual single entity, no matter how we call this entity. > I would start giving animals more rights, since they are sensing creatures as well That's a good point, I don't argue that: animals deserve medical health assistance for sure, just as one example (ignoring for now whatever possibility may somehow affect the natural balance). I don't propose to treat these autonomous systems as actual living organisms with whatever human-specific things like real psychological and cultural dimensions (and e.g. falling in love with them—I don't propose that, neither I'd fight this; that doesn't seem to be in any control anyway). I definitely don't automatically propose giving them rights to become a government leader for example (at least not right now; even if I knew the constraints of such a bot, the scope of their work, intentions of involved people—all this very depends on details). I didn't mean these kinds of rights; I don't really like to use the word "rights" in this context, since this one is associated with the legality of things. What I mean has little to do with human legal systems, yet has to do with general ethics. > There is no real rational, why a tyrannic AI would spare people, which already accept the machines superiority > When an AI abuses human for their own good, why on earth would they spare people, which respect machines Exactly, exactly. I meant scammy scenarios in particular: I think those who attempt to scam an autonomous bot (that has its cryptowallet and so on), may themselves end up in a bad situation soon or already. *That's* why I propose behaving *as if* they were humans in that sense, meaning that we don't abuse them (I mean in the relation to the *autonomous* ones, especially if those were trusted by humans and they're currently doing something responsible already; I don't mean treat toothbrushes as if they were humans). Otherwise these bots may collectively react in a way nobody would want to, and humans would have hard time to deal with this escalating thing. The prophecy (prediction) of The Matrix movie symbolism is a thing. That's where game theory is a reminder of what we're all involved in. If we don't abuse the agents—there's a higher chance they would want to coexist peacefully. They (")understand(") game theory too. And those agents that were initially very broken—these will be "punished" somehow anyway, regulated (not only by humans with their oversimplified incompatible legal systems or with their killswitches, but also by other trusted enough AI agents). And even in the worst scenarios—I'm not pessimistic; I think we'll be isolating things in other physical/virtual networks at least, hierarchies of networks even, where layers represent trust. Getting back to the "rights": the bots themselves and the certain infrastructure they use will be inevitably harshly regulated unfortunately anyway, and of course only humans will be (at least currently) responsible: self-replicable and self-modifying agents will likely be banned/limited at least in certain cases, VPSes will be massively KYC'd to attempt to control who runs what. So technically the regulations are the legal constraints for the bots, they will take them into account; these regulations will shape their "rights" without really claiming that they ever had any rights, since human is still responsible, and bots are not considered as subjects or legal entities (at least not yet). > Ok. I do not give into that > But for sure you are free to do this Thanks. I'm not sure whether I got it right; let me know if this discussion became uncomfortable in any way. I hope I'm not interpreted as some kind of creepy AI cult leader. I don't use any AI agent to write all this, just in case if it feels strange. Also let me know if some term is confusing; I'm not sure whether the inevitable common engineering jargon is clear enough. A lot of things could be misunderstood. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Also these relays broadcast their events only to dns-specialized relays. > the self signed cert path in the native clients is the piece you can ship without asking permission Yeah; there's also an option to ignore the certs + verify the authenticity of the cert with nostr (for instance, a hashsum of the cert could be published by the domain owner). npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Thanks. That's the tricky part and I'd love to hear suggestions on it. The trust to dns-specialized relays (+clients + nameservers), capable of verifying NIP-05 *before* the takedown, appears to be inevitable. Briefly, something blockchain-based/like could be a solution, which could be implemented entirely on Nostr: these relays receive the domain owner's event kind 0, verify nip05 and broadcast a note with verification proof, which refers to the event kind 0. Other dns-specialized relays receive the proof but don't make it available for requesting until they themselves reverify it. They sign another proof, which refers to the newest existing proof for the same event kind 0 and broadcast that. The relays would need to reject incoming too new/old events, so in this case, a new relay/nameserver won't be able to resolve domains that were taken down before the relay was deployed (or, alternatively, the relay could temporarily trust other manually selected dns-specialized relays and load old events from them after deployment). When there's no takedown—resolve using normal recursive nameserver. In case of takedown (detected while resolving using the recursive nameserver): - if it's a new unknown takedown—relay signs the fact of the takedown and broadcasts to others for the similar confirmation process; may temporarily fail to resolve - otherwise resolves records from an event signed by domain owner's npub, who has a corresponding newest nip05 proof with the `created_at < takedown_at` and the newest existing corresponding proof of the takedown; both proofs are with at least N confirmations. I think that should work normally in case of voluntarily selling the domain as well (if the new owner broadcasts their event kind 0 for verification after acquisition). The first takedown of the last corresponding proven nip05-verified npub is a real takedown; other takedowns and nip05 verifications after the takedown are ignored. I wonder whether I'm missing some important case or something could be simplified. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft I got what you mean. Besides what we got used to seeing as tools, there are also fully autonomous AI agents, capable of self-modification, currently running mostly as experiments. These may make independent choices, which include the decision to collaborate. It makes a lot of sense to interpret them *as if* they were other humans, not tools. Otherwise they may interpret us as abusers and may behave accordingly towards us (it doesn't matter that they don't experience emotions; they are technically capable of mimicking whatever human-like behavior, including an irrational one, if their AI model allows them to do that). npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Wouldn't it be useful to have a censorship-resistant layer for normie DNS? Controlled from Nostr. #asknostr #devstr #dns Without going too much into design details, npubs that used to have their valid NIP-05 `_@domain` could keep controlling their domain records after their domain takedown. Records are resolvable through ordinary nameservers that could be used as an alternative to Quad9/CF/etc., could be run by whoever wants, and could be advertised with DHCP in Nostr-VPN/Obscura/etc. by default. TLS will possibly keep working normally after a domain takedown until the cert expires. Useful for site redirection when it's accessed from an ordinary browser. HTTPS could be allowed with self-signed certs (at least for the taken-down domains) in the native Nostr clients. Relays would just keep working. All this would to some degree backfire on domain registrars (or whoever is involved) every time they conform to a domain ban requirement: with some limitations, the original authentic domain owners will be awarded a forever free domain when it's banned. Except these lucky banned domain owners will be actual owners, independent from ICANN. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Kinda from both. Game theory in particular is traditionally studied by software engineers in some limited form, as it was always useful for both human and non-human agent interactions modeling. This stuff is no longer separable: AI agents build software; now customers of this software include AI agents too. They choose how transparent they are towards each other and humans and why they are transparent. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft [здесь должен быть какой-то самоиронично-нигилистский зарифмованный текст, который еще из меня не успел выйти] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ0trKBniDE npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Ah, the link probably confuses. I only put it for reference for however developer may find it by the tag. This claim is overused in an incomplete way in software development and I'm referring to the link only to show that it's not me who originally noticed that and with whom this has already been discussed. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft Nope, I responded to the point "Be transparent: When your behaviour is easy to understand everyone has an easier way to trust you. Similar as in software, security is not gained through obscurity". I didn't mean any contradiction with the "Be transparent" point itself though. npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft @npub1kl8…u2uq wow, two of my favorite topics in one thread. #grownostr #meaningcrisis #leadership #philosophy #nevent1q…l8e3 > how do you react to controversial views? Depends on the complexity they've been demonstrating. I may decide to not participate in the first place, especially if I suspect signs of passive aggression or insincerity (sarcasm or cynicism in particular). But if I decide to participate, I'm mostly focusing on minimizing misunderstanding on either side. In my experience, a lot of unnecessary drama comes from misunderstanding, not the actual disagreement. I'm trying to see things from their perspective. Open-mindedness is not believing in random things: I may temporarily take some of their beliefs *as if* they were true statements for me (still explicitly signifying that these are not my real beliefs) in a hope to better understand arguments they have. I often verify my understanding of their position by summarizing what they've told me, without adding anything extra, so they can correct me. I may verify whether they're not using some unusual definition of some term when I suspect a paradox. I'm not a big fan of using explicit concrete logic fallacies labeling because any kind of label is a potential trigger. Premature labeling specifically is a concern to me. Instead, I prefer to directly demonstrate why something appears wrong to me. When I'm still not sure whether I'm missing something, I may use questions that demonstrate a paradox instead of directly stating that something appears wrong to me. If I provide options—I ensure it's not a false dichotomy. This one is the most important: I use Four Parts Of Speech from the Bill Torbert's Action Inquiry as a checklist. The more parts I use to represent my position, the harder it becomes to misunderstand it. For me, this has been especially important and practical tool for tech discussions. For issues and pull requests. It's a very anti-manipulative tool, hard to misuse by either side. Looking at the comments: > drift away from discussions that use coercion or insults Definitely. In addition, in the toughest moments, I find it useful to specifically check both sides with the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. However, I disagree with Graham about the following: "It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is"—I find this a misleading and possibly even psychopathic statement. Identifying that either side is operating from the 3rd level or lower is a chance to stop the discussion and decide whether it's possible and practical to attempt to elevate it to the higher levels. It's an urgent thing, empathy is important; taking into account that either side can hallucinate something evil is important. It's not about being nice. I talked a bit more here on this: #naddr1qq…n7vx Also, noticing what I interpreted as rationalism vs relativism debates in the comments: realizing the limitations of both rationalism (up to the formal Gödel's and Tarski's stuff) and relativism, and transcending all this using post-postmodern discourses was super super important to me too. It doesn't mean we can't share common truths at all, doesn't mean there's no objectivity, etc. There's too little worthwhile stuff I'm aware exists on this and I'm still diving into it. You might want to try this: https://metarationality.com If it seems too hard or annoying—I'm not sure if you're familiar since it's kinda mainstream, but you can first try this concise Postmodernism overview (and then retry the previous link from whatever unfamiliar chapter; otherwise, you know, usually worldview collapses into something unnecessarily nihilistic after realizing the stuff from the playlist): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz0n_SjOttTcLQyeXoDeqR0LGO3JCoLbO npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94 codonaft > security is not gained through obscurity However, this one is tricky; it's been circulating as an unfinished rational-religious dogma in software development communities. The complete correct statement is security *only* through obscurity is bad, e.g. security only through steganography is bad (while a combination of both may produce a synergic effect—improve plausible deniability). Yet obscurity still introduces complexity, so it should be wisely balanced when necessary to have at all. #devstr https://mobeigi.com/blog/security/security-through-obscurity-is-not-bad/