Yeah, did:web exists, but I still called it centralized because it still relies on did:plc pretty much everywhere (though honestly domain name handles might actually be did:web, not sure). Didn’t know about that dual setup by Bluesky though!

I did notice the @handle.invalid! Thanks!

My understanding was that activitypub was basically a rough formalization of existing protocols, designed to be as flexible as possible. More a template than a real protocol. Unfortunately mastodon’s popularity basically made a bunch of things de-facto obligatory but not well documented, and there’s still a bunch of ways to do… anything.

That link doesn’t work for me, but I ended up finding a post by them that seems to correspond. Good to know, thanks! Seems like it’s realistic but expensive still (150$/mo?), and it’s not gonna get cheaper… I hope they figure out a way to make them less centralized.

I believe that’s your handle, not your identity. Your handle resolves to your identity, but your identity isn’t directly tied to it, in case you lose the domain.

The aggregator is called the Relay, and I haven’t even found anything suggesting one could realistically selfhost it. Then you need to handle the massive stream of data coming through it with AppViews, which are tough to handle too (there are a few but not many iirc).

That said, I am also impressed with the thought behind ATProtocol. It seems much more robust and defined than ActivityPub.

Bluesky’s federation model is actually quite interesting, they go for a very portable approach vs activitypub’s instance-basis. Unfortunately, there’s still a massive centralization point (the main relay, the only thing that can really handle the firehose), and identity is also centralized, albeit has mechanisms to be decentralized.

I don’t think this is gonna work. You can’t just ban something like that, you have to provide alternatives, and there aren’t any. There needs to be a Club Penguin-type “kids internet”. Course, dealing with children’s data is “too expensive” (and risky), so that’s not gonna happen.

Thank you!

I would love to know as well!

I pronounce it da-eh-mon in my head, it sounds more old-timey than “dee-mon”.

Ah, my bad then.

… what you said is correct, but that’s superposition, not entanglement. Entanglement is when you create a product state of several qubits that cannot be decomposed into a tensor product of basic states (a single proton/photon/whatever).

Oh yeah, that. My bad, mixed 'em up.

The original algorithm doesn’t use entanglement, though! Just the fact that measurements can change the state. You can pick an axis to measure a quantum state in. If you pick two axes that are diagonal to each other, measuring a state in the “wrong” axis can give a random result (the first time), whereas the “right” one always gives the original data.

So the trick is to have the sender encode their bits into a randomly-picked axis per bit (the quantum states), send the states over, and then the receiver decodes them along a random axis as well. On average, half the axes will match up and those bits will correspond. The other bits are junk (random). They then tell each other the random axes they picked, which identifies the right bits!

They can compare a certain amount of their “correct” bits: if there’s an eavesdropper, they must have measured in the wrong state half the time (on average). Measurement changes the state into its own axis, so the receiver gets a random bit instead of the right one half the time. 25% of the time, the bits mismatch, when they should always correspond.

You can have post-quantum cryptography using classical computation, though

(“Simply” pick a problem with no quantum acceleration. I think Elliptic Curves Cryptography works, but I’m not an expert)

Neat! I can’t wait for Cosmic, it’s shaping up to be so nice

Very nice! Does/will cosmic have the ability to style buttons? Those are the main factorio UI feature imo (that and so many slots, which aren’t a normal UI element)

Ahh, that makes sense. Powers of two are real convenient. Your math is a little wrong though: X != (X & 0xFF) + (X >> 8), but X = (X & 0xFF) + (X >> 8) << 8 The right half can be removed entirely if you’re doing modulo 16, since the first 4 bits will always be 0. So it simply becomes X & 15! Much cleaner for sure.

Would you happen to remember what the optimization was, mathematically?

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20036698/subdivide-a-modulo-function-16-bit-but-can-only-do-8-bits-at-a-time#20036828 seems to say that it’s “impossible afaik”, and I can’t seem to optimize it myself (though this kind of math isn’t my forte)

Block the community?