Not sure why your remark has -100 sats because you make a good point.

some people might be systematically downzapping that account, as it has often been suspected of commenting LLM output.

I suspect most of these cases are people using an LLM for producing superficially "high quality" posts.

I have a weird situation, because I use a custom layout [similar to Dvorak]. Sometimes apps respond to the key as though it is what's labelled on the keyboard, rather than what's mapped... e.g. Dvorak's V is on QWERTY's ., and when I press Ctrl+that now, I get <sup></sup> rather than paste.

The keyboard layout is configured using the old Xorg crap. The best solution is probably switching to keyd and letting Xorg die away quietly.

archived

the TLDR is to break apart large problems, factor out security-critical code for closer auditing, and demand tests and documentation.

honestly I could imagine the same advice being circulated a decade ago, between managers who don't write code themselves.

I can imagine your reasoning, and am obviously much less familiar than you with the site's various common scenarios and edge cases; however, I think should at least be obvious that the number changed meaning, maybe using some CSS change that is more visually obvious than the appearance and disappearance of the minus sign.

I'm seeing negative numbers on comments that only received downzaps; zapping this causes the number to be replaced with the positive zap amount, rather than summed. This seems a little unintuitive, as the information of the downzaps is now lost from my perspective, although still relevant in the calculations...

do you deliberately not pick any human-memorable nym for your SN account?

Interesting list... ultimately I guess it reflects personal preferences as well as impersonal considerations of "signal to noise ratio".

anyway, thanks for sharing it. In principle I'm in favor of transparency although I hope this specific topic doesn't cause more animosity than the mild confusion found in the sibling comments.

I think there is also an efficiency question; fiddling around with any new technology takes time. I think most people might honestly just consider it too complicated after the first or second time reconfiguring, while seeing that using the site is still possible without...

In my case I was also a little surprised at how sometimes my linked wallet would get used for zapping, despite my account in the site having more than enough CCs and zaps accumulated from rewards... however it was a small amount and overall my net stacking and zapping even out.

you know, if they're not making freebie comments, then they're spending sats or CCs that they acquired somehow, e.g. zapping invoices, daily rewards, etc

SN doesn't require that everybody be adding new satoshis into the wallet. Some people could legitimately be adding value through their participation, and either zapping it back entirely within the site, or extracting it as their compensation for activity that the community values.

I don't really disagree with your position in the case of regular SN usage.

I'm thinking more about how things like channel capacity affect the high end of the range; LN liquidity thins out as the size of the withdrawal grows beyond a certain point, so there is probably some limit beyond which a large stack is better spent as lots of relatively smaller zaps and boosts.

It could very well be that I'm speculating about a phenomenon that simply doesn't exist. I've still not yet used nor studied LN much, beyond making small payments and reading general guides.

1 CC = 1 sats

it's really an interesting topic for argument, someday; the equivalence is obviously only accurate within the middle linear part around the inflection point of a sigmoid

am I wasting time discussing this with you? honestly, I don't want either of us to argue needlessly.

it's already archived

tl;dr:

[...]

First, you have the "power users", who are all in on adopting new AI technology - Claude Code, MCPs, skills, etc. Surprisingly, these people are often not very technical. I've seen far more non-technical people than I'd expect using Claude Code in terminal, using it for dozens of non-SWE tasks. Finance roles seem to be getting enormous value out of it (unsurprisingly, as Excel on the finance side is remarkably limiting when you start getting used to the power of a full programming ecosystem like Python).

Secondly, you have the people who are generally only chatting to ChatGPT or similar. So many people I wouldn't expect are still in this camp.

[...]

What I've come to realise is that the power of having a bash sandbox^[1] with a programming language and API access to systems, combined with an agentic harness, results in outrageously good results for non technical users. It can effectively replace nearly every standard productivity app out there - both classic Microsoft Office style ones - and also web apps. It can build any report you ask for - and export it however you like. To me this seems like the future of knowledge work.

The bifurcation is real and seems to be, if anything, speeding up dramatically. I don't think there's ever been a time in history where a tiny team can outcompete a company one thousand times its size so easily.

1. it wasn't archived yet, so I've linked the live original; I'll edit the archive link into this footnote after it's done ↩

hello stackzoo and welcome to SN!

please pick some human-memorable handle, and/or click the edit bio action, that should appear off to one side, just above this comment...

thanks for sharing the live link;

for folks more interested in low-hanging fruit and poachable idioms, it's not only source-available, but even "unlicensed"

the organization's github profile is also worth a skim, if you're not already familiar with any of the folks involved

I would tamper your quantum worries until they demonstrate they can factor numbers considerably bigger than 15....

FYI, "factoring 15" was about factoring a specific kind of composite number, the smallest whole of which is decimal fifteen. IIRC there are multiple composites that could be used as RSA moduli that were simultaneously factored by the researchers, and the interesting / worrying challenge is the question of determining whether some arbitrary RSA modulus belongs to that kind of composite, and after confirming that, interconverting from binary to quantum becomes a negligible cost.

I would be interested to hear counter points to the above.

tl;dr ... or rather, I'm gonna give you my priors before reading, and any actual counterpoints will probably end up in a separate comment due to the editing timer.

1. lots of "QFS spam" is priming people for openness towards new financial systems, while also making them hostile towards XRP
2. nakamoto consensus is rather orthogonal to quantum security
3. the chain of bitcoin block headers is the most expensive crypto canary, and actually incentivizes open research into quantum secure algorithms
4. researchers who wish to claim canary bounties [i.e. mine bitcoin] anonymously are incentivised to improve bitcoin's quantum resilience, rather than shorting futures for fiat
5. the opex&capex of doing business within bitcoin are changed by the considerations of quantum resilience, although it doesn't "kill" "bitcoin for plebs" any more than lowering the effective block size by ~31MB did.

correct, I have a difficult time listening to podcasts, and was hoping to understand the relevance of the title from the text.

Stereotypes always unnerve me a bit, because they often have some basis, then they get blown out of proportion, and sometimes they become self-fulfilling prophecies. As far as understanding women goes, I definitely am an example of the stereotypical man who frequently gets confounded by their behavior.... however I make an effort to consider people's behaviors as resulting from their individual situation and personality, rather than automatically writing them off as due to some stereotype.

are you aware of any efforts to provide alternatives?

obviously it doesn't take much of a coordinated maintainership effort for individuals to pick some old version and stick with it, although even publishing instructions on how to do this would help the people who have previously always installed distribution packages.

it's not "low hanging", the challenge is ludicrously difficult and honestly, I believe that however well-intentioned affirmative action efforts might be, they are often like feeding escaped zoo animals rather than rewilding from sanctuaries.

why the mysogynistic [clickbait?] post title? your text doesn't seem to have anything about women being inherently neurotic, beyond your impression of your Instagram friends...

uh didn't darknet markets already get along perfectly well with L1, and invariably get shut down due to opsec failures?