In the latest FOSS project I’m starting, I’m not avoiding all “open core” supposedly FOSS projects. In my experience, they’re the projects most likely to do a rug pull and change licenses. If they cannot commit to their entire project being free and open, they are less likely to actually be committed to the principles of free and open software.
While I was quite excited about some of the ideas being discussed in this project, it being VC backed is a complete non starter for me. Your claims of being built in the open don’t make me feel any better, you will eventually need to make returns for investors.
This is really good inspiration for some of my plain text accounting projects! Could you please go into more detail about your RFC3161 attestation of commits? I'm assuming you're signing your commits with a gpg key to assert that it was in fact you who made the commit. Do you use an external timstamping service and an external ca authority, or do you build your own chains of trust? If you were asked to attest your accounting commits, what would that look like to the auditor?
The time stamp stuff is mostly a lark, because the bank statements and receipts are probably all that really matters, but it was fun!
I use freetsa.org and OpenSSL on the git commit hash to tie that commit to a particular point in time. I also added the Bitcoin based opentimestamps-client time stamping, but even fewer auditors would believe that it's of any value... Edit: I only timestamp after account reconciliation right now, and will do it when I close the books for a year. The files for attestation get attached to the commit with a git note, and get added to a directory for easier browsing. An LLM can write scripts for this, probably from just copying and pasting this comment as direction. I installed them as git subcommands.
Other CAs offer for-fee time stamp attestation, and I hear it may hold value in the EU, but here in the US it's only for fun, and for very small values of fun!
Thank you for taking the time to reply! Agreed, it does seem like any auditor would be able to verify all this information from other sources, but I really like the idea of having multiple independent levels of attestation for my organizations important financial and legal documents.
No, the point of proofs in mathematics IS to prove a particular statement is true, given certain axioms (accepted truths). Yes, there are numerous benefits beyond demonstrating something is undeniably true, given certain accepted truths, perhaps more “useful” than the proof itself, but math is a method of formal knowledge that doesn’t accept shortcuts.
A lot of mathematicians (myself included) would say that the point of proofs isn’t entirely to know whether or not a statement is true, but that it exists to promote human understanding. In fact, I’d argue that at some level, knowing whether or not a theorem is true can be less important than understanding an argument.
This is why having multiple different proofs is valuable to the math community—because different proofs offer different perspectives and ways of understanding.
Three failures this close together is problematic! I have no insight, but I wonder if organization or cultural changes are to blame? Plus, SpaceX flouting FAA rules recently, makes me worry about their long term future.
What’s the best way to handle url slugs that change? For example, if I have www.example.com/page/foo, and the user changes that page’s title to bar, the slug updates to www.example.com/page/bar and anyone visiting the old url gets automatically redirected to the new one. But now the old slug of foo can’t be used again (without appending some unique identifier to it, like foo-th683gh9i).
It’s not great but it matters less when the content you get going to that page is so unremarkable. Don’t forget you can do that to any url, even of sites that don’t use optional slugs, if your goal is just vague, evil-by-link-appearance.
This article is about incorrect understanding by engineers and scientists of how different materials, in different conditions, behave during reentry:
“"During its initial design, the Dragon spacecraft trunk was evaluated for reentry breakup and was predicted to burn up fully," NASA said in a statement. "The information from the debris recovery provides an opportunity for teams to improve debris modeling. NASA and SpaceX will continue exploring additional solutions as we learn from the discovered debris."”
and
“These incidents highlight an urgency for more research into what happens when a spacecraft makes an uncontrolled reentry into the atmosphere, according to engineers from the Aerospace Corporation”.
The inclusion at the end of the article about how low the risk of space debris injuring an individual serves to tell the reader space debris hitting them is not something they need to worry about. Again, this is about experts updating and improving their models, especially as the number of space launches grows dramatically, sometimes using novel materials.
I agree people are generally very bad at understanding the relationships among probabilities, hazards, and risks. But this article cites multiple, independent experts, and specifically highlights how this is not a problem of you getting hit by space debris, which is quite anti-clickbait.
A very common quote by Paracelsus in medicine and toxicology: “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.” [0]
While I was quite excited about some of the ideas being discussed in this project, it being VC backed is a complete non starter for me. Your claims of being built in the open don’t make me feel any better, you will eventually need to make returns for investors.
reply