I prefer FOSS because it is more trustless. But trustlessness alone does not necessarily yield better software.

Excellent software can emerge from both FOSS and closed source, is my point.

In 2032, all software is written and audited by AI so funding development is about to get way cheaper /s

If you aren't able to review every line of code yourself...

But you trust the wallet maintainers not to be malicious...

And you trust that hundreds of competent engineers have reviewed the source...

Then whats the difference between using closed and FOSS?

Imagine if Apple included a closed source wallet on every iPhone. I trust Apple not to steal from me... they have a lot to lose by being malicious. And I trust that Apple is employing smart engineers to review the code.

Sure they're probably logging data about me, and that might make the closed source option "worse" in this case. But FOSS could also log data in a way that goes unnoticed for a long time

Depends. If I started a company and built a new wallet from scratch but I decided not release the source, I would probably still use it since I wrote it and could review the source anytime I wanted.

Or if a company I knew and trusted released a closed source wallet, I'd consider using it if I knew that hundreds of smart people were auditing the code.

Its probably not the best business decision since new customers probably don't trust the business and making the wallet FOSS would allow people to trust the community to vet the software instead of just one centralized team.

Do you audit and review the source code of all the FOSS wallets you use?

Not necessarily. There are plenty worse/dangerous/insecure examples of software with a FOSS-flavored LISCENSE.txt in their repo.

Base models are technical products. Apps like ChatGPT use the base model to deliver value. I suppose apps benefit more from branding than the base models themselves.

Its common practice in software dev to label releases with a major.minor.patch (i.e. v0.1.23) version notation. A bump in major version represents a huge architectural difference, or rewrite, or release of many big features, and/or incompatibility with previous versions. Whereas a bump in minor version is less significant, but still probably has lots of improvements. A bump in patch version is likely just a bugfix or less noticeable change.

The naming convention for LLMs likely stems from this as well. It has little to do with fractions or doing math. Its just a way to see at a glance how a piece of software is improving over time. Bigger number usually means better/battle-tested.

If shovels do all digging, and wheels move all weight, if machines manufacture all the things, if computers do all the communication and coordination, if robot vacuums pickup every mess... only then will AI fix everything.

Vinegar is actually more effective due to higher concentration of acetic acid. Cola isn't poison because of the acid, its the sugars that are addictive and slowly killing people.

"SolarCoin" would unite all planetary coins. Imagine a block chain with kilobyte blocksize and week/month/year-long block times.

Such a coin could have a center of hash near the center of our sun, rather than favoring any particular planet. It could become the interplanetary settlement chain.

What other heat options are available? Usually natural gas is cheaper to run than electric.

Post should be titled "Non-profitability..."

DC adjustable power supply, Fluke multimeter, Kill-a-Watt outlet meter, wire of various gauges, wire strippers, breadboard kit, label maker, project shelving or cubbies for people to store things between visits, whiteboard, a shop vac for the inevitable messes, calipers for making precise measurements, safety stuff (eyes, ears, hands, first aid kit), crafty supplies (tape, hot glue, pipe cleaners, popsicle sticks, twine/rope, markers, construction paper, play dough, Lego bricks), basic tool sets (wrench, screwdrivers, drills), misc screw and fasteners sets, velcro fasteners, heat set brass inserts super useful for 3d printing

And finally... a box for purchase requests and donations

I'm sure the newspapers acted real hard to fight the internet too.

It doesn't have to be implemented. It just emerges.

I think its already becoming more difficult to monopolize violence.

3D printed firearms, Money thats difficult to take by force, robot drones and humanoid bodygaurds, and one day it will be feasible for someone to manufacture a nuke in their garage.

All these factors are signaling a decentralization of access to violence. But also access to protect oneself without need of a state.

States are like the newspapers with their monopoly on information getting disrupted by the internet age.

There are also many corporations that have lasted longer than government regimes.

The word "corporation" has legal baggage. It implies "incorporated in a state" and bound by the laws of that state.

What I really mean by "corporation" is a market enterprise that competes to deliver more value at some cost.

With this framing, states ARE ALREADY corporations. They compete in a market for productive citizens, and resources, they provide value in the form of property, protection and rights, and they have costs like taxes, mandatory military service, laws to abide by, etc.

States are just corporations which managed to secure a monopoly on violence. Once a corporation corners the market on violence, they have essentially become a state.

With violence as an asset, states can start stealing value instead of creating it. They can do this for centuries with little consequence.

Why does anyone's stake in the corporation matter if you can just steal (or print yourself) a bigger stake?

Its from this place of violence as a means to compete for value that "government systems" emerge.

Governments are like a cancer that grows on any corporation that has grown beyond its ability to compete peacefully.

Once a corporation has a system of government that selects elites based on something other than their personal stake, its days/years are numbered.

Many corporations have more employees and/or customers than some countries have citizens

But i agree on the point of scale. Large nation states are unnatural, its why empires always collapse in a debt fueled inferno.

Corporations

A dictatatorship where you are the dictator (soverign) or at least you agree with everything the dictator does.

That's a better system.

Democracies also weigh heavy on the citizens. Think how much time/energy/and thought regular people put into politics.

Many would be much better off using that energy to improve their own lives thru engaging in commerce. Instead, people in democracies feel the need to "stay informed" even tho their influence is so small its irrelevant.

Benevolent dictators are pretty great!

Democracy doesn't really exist, every state is always "rule of the elite", no matter what system of gov they pretend to have. The system of gov just helps define what constitutes "an elite person" worthy of rule.

In a popularity contest (democracy) the "elite" is often the person who promises the most "free stuff".

In a corporate hierarchy, the elite tend to be those who have the greatest stake in the company.

I, for one, welcome the fall of democracies!

Imagine if every company were run as a democracy... instead of a corporate-ownership hierarchy.

They'd all be bankrupt, deep in debt, and shrinking in economic significance.

Pretty similar situation for the economies of "blue" regions in this map.