My position regarding devices is that only 2 out of 3 should be satisfied:

1. Used as a proof of identity (for banks, govt services, etc.)

2. Is distributed to laypeople who have more pressing concerns in their lives than security.

3. Is an open platform where you can download apps arbitrarily from the Internet that can read your data and exfiltrate them to a malicious actor.

The mainstream today chooses 1&2. Novelty, underpowered devices choose 2&3. Hobbyists have option 3 (and those who like to live dangerously 1&3) with some inconvenience. You can still run GrapheneOS... and the mainstream apps that expect your device to be a proof of your identity won't work... and I find that quite reasonable.

I take issue with the idea that openness and freedom to install arbitrary software cannot occur without strong safety mechanisms. Android/GrapheneOS/iOS have sandboxing and permissions systems that put most desktop OSes to shame. The base platform can control apps' access to every resource, and an app store can put its own caveats and reminders to users for what kind of access is needed for the functions of a given app.

Sandboxing and permissions provide a different type of security than application signatures. Sandboxing can limit app capabilities, but it doesn't change the fact that you can accidentally grant a malicious application permissions.

Application signatures and developer identification bring a different kind of application security. It provides the security of societal legal systems and legal ramifications for malicious actors.

In the end, you still have the choice to trust the "system" or your own judgment.

You have a consistent habit of posing complex questions in your rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question

Please don't do that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This is not really a complex question as much as it is an analogy demonstrating that allowing third parties to dictate how you live leads to a huge loss of your freedom with bad consequences on your independence and control. But you are right: I could say this in my above comment.

It's a number of false choices. Google has complete control over Android and they could easily implement 1, 2, and 3 if they wanted. It's not as if they couldn't provide the means for certified secure enclave apps in addition to normal ones.

Companies might bet that it is safer to base their businesses on more fungible explicated domain knowledge rather than knowledge that is siloed in human brains.

I guess you could hire people to work it out or ai to hallucinate it

In agreement, it seems to me that where this word is used, the more generally used "flock" could be used with no hindrance to communication.

In my mind this is it, the colloquial seasons, and with vague boundaries depending on feeling, whereas the calendar "seasons" are there just to quarter the year artificially.

It's so funny to me that you compare a decapitation strike with the stated aim of regime change to vandalism; I'd compare the actions taken to Iran in 2025 to vandalism over this.

There are areas of mathematics where the standard proofs are very interesting and require insight, often new statements and definitions and theorems for their sake, but the theorems and definitions are banal. For an extreme example, consider Fermat's Last Theorem.

Note on the other hand that proving standard properties of many computer programs are frequently just tedious and should be automated.

Yes, but > 90% of the proof work to be done is not that interesting insightful stuff. It is rather pattern matching from existing proofs to find what works for the proof you are currently working on.

If you've ever worked on a proof for formal verification, then its...work...and the nature of the proof probably (most probably) is not going to be something new and interesting for other people to read about, it is just work that you have to do.

You're right, I misread your comment. Apologies.

I think I have your new build(s) as I can play from the archive, but the contrast is still too low for me. Note that displays are different, so it's likely that things are more indistinct for me than for you. I've just played through the archive, and all my mistakes came from off-by-one errors because the grid lines were indistinct and I misplaced the holes.

the contrast for the grid lines should be better now, would like to hear your feedback, thanks again!

Hmm I think you made the grid lines thicker? I prefer it, but the thickness looks inconsistent (several divisions of the paper do not seem have thicker grid lines on my display)

thanks for the detailed feedback and trying it out, I will be rechecking the contrast issue

thanks!

I think we may have similar perspectives. Regarding empirical knowledge, consider when the knowledge is in relation to chaotic systems. Characterize chaotic systems at least as systems where inaccurate observations about the system in the past and present while useful for predicting the future, nevertheless see the errors grow very quickly for the task of predicting a future state. Then indeed, prediction is difficult.

One domain of knowledge I think you have yet to mention. We can talk about fundamentally computationally hard problems. What comes to mind regarding such problems that are nevertheless of practical benefit are physics simulations, material simulations, fluid simulations, but there exist problems that are more provably computationally difficult. It seems to me that with these systems, the chaotic nature is one where even if you have one infinitely precise observation of a deterministic system, accessing a future state of the system is difficult as well, even though once accessed, memorization seems comparatively trivial.

In the US context, it is much harder for distant enemies to target energy supply chains that are entirely located on domestic soil, like, say, most renewables.

Well no one is targeting US petro installations either. But again, supply chain disruption elsewhere will raise global prices just like it does with our domestic petro prices.

Today's mainstream solar panels use abundant, widely available materials.

Feels like PV boosters these days are just completely and totally unaware of where these things actually come from and who controls the material supply chain.

Your feelings are likely off - most people know that the materials used in solar panels are widely available across the globe and that China dominates the manufacturing process due to the US abdicating interest in manufacturing and renewables.

You get why this is bad, right.

.. and you get why this is less bad than Middle East fossil fuel dependancies right?