It’s human nature to trust strongmen

not mine

Not a trap, it’s just that “slop” is an english word that has a relevant meaning in this context. It’s not like it’s just made up slang for describing AI stuff.

Are you a native english speaker? Just curious.

In this thread.

I haven’t tried it myself but I’ve seen other people say that when they go back to an old Facebook account, Facebook will require a scan of their ID in order to log in. They can be a real removed about letting people log in to accounts that have been inactive for a long time.

Something a lot like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpBAFOmdNgU

Usenet is federated (which is a type of decentralization), and I think OP means peer-to-peer (fully distributed).

But it seems you are totally missing the point of Taler, as it doesn’t even aim to be anything like so called crypto-“currencies”. It’s a digital payment system like Paypal, but decentralized.

No, I’m not missing that point, I understand the design goals of Taler. You seem to have misinterpreted my comment. I am pointing out that the inability to store Taler currency in a cold wallet is counter to existing user education from similar systems (digital currencies) and therefore will lead to loss of funds of users who don’t understand how Taler works.

From the FAQ:

How to avoid digital cash expiration?

Taler e-money is issued with a validity period. One month before the expiration date, your wallet should automatically exchange any digital cash that is about to expire for new digital cash with an extended validity period. However, if your wallet is offline for an extended period of time, it may be unable to do so. Ensure your wallet is regularly online to avoid losing money due to expiration!

You can lose money if the coins in your wallet “expire”.

The fact that this system is shipping v1.0 with such an anti-user design deficiency tells me all I need to know. I wonder how many Taler “beta” users will lose their cash before they fix the design. I wonder how much of the customer support load of the exchanges will be dealing with this issue.

And this comes after a decade of the cryptocurrency industry educating users to store their funds in a cold-wallet to avoid getting hacked, so it’s counter-intuitive to anyone with passing experience of digital currencies. If there’s one thing that we learnt from the cryptocurrecy industry, it’s that users don’t care to understand how the technology works, and will do stupid things. Anything that seeks wide adoption needs to be designed for non-technical people.

What a terrible design decision.

Does your client not allow you to make a text-only post without the keyboard-mashing URL?

Where are the sample queries and corresponding results to demonstrate that it works well? Oh there aren’t any?

“in Europe”

Yes it is completely fine and legal.

You’ll only have a problem if the application has features that are patented and the patents are enforceable. Or if you are impersonating a trademark.

Although the theory is promising, the duo point out that they have not yet completed its proof. The theory uses a technical procedure known as renormalization, a mathematical way of dealing with infinities that show up in the calculations.

So far Partanen and Tulkki have shown that this works up to a certain point—for so-called ‘first order’ terms—but they need to make sure the infinities can be eliminated throughout the entire calculation.

“If renormalization doesn’t work for higher order terms, you’ll get infinite results. So it’s vital to show that this renormalization continues to work,” explains Tulkki. “We still have to make a complete proof, but we believe it’s very likely we’ll succeed.”

Can you link the bug report please?

Although there were already discussions about it as early as 2005 (and earlier), Loic and company had been hosting a Web3 conference in France (“Le Web3”) for a few years back then. (The real Web3, not the crypto-Web3. < this is why many, if not most, Fediverse devs don’t like crypto, the crypto enthusiasts stole “Web3”)

I think you’ve retconned a little bit here. LeWeb3 was named as a sequel to the previous conference which was called LeBlogs2. Remember, at that time Web 2.0 hadn’t really taken off yet - browsers had only just implemented the XMLHTTPRequest API - so it wouldn’t have made sense to already be talking about Web 3.0.

Here is an original document containing some history of LeWeb3: https://web.archive.org/web/20070704054929/http://www.loiclemeur.com/LeWeb3executivesummaryv1.pdf

It was pretty obvious the approach behind for instance Deep Blue wasn’t the way forward.

That’s a weird example to pick. What exactly about Deep Blue do you think wasn’t the way forward?

I once had an issue logging in to Google where they wanted to verify me some way that I couldn’t complete. I eventually got around it by going through the “Forgot Password” workflow instead of logging in normally. I have no idea if this still works or whether it will make things worse for you, but if all else fails it might be worth a try.

What did he lie about? What was the larger case about?