Yup even when you tell it your version it forgets pretty quickly. Or agrees it messed up and assures you this time it will give you the correct info for your version number then gives you the same command.

Javascript is a nightmare as they change everything constantly. PHP has backwards compatibility for everything so its not really an issue.

It also gives out dated info on salesforce, and im not just talking about the latest and greatest, it recommends stuff that was deprecated years ago.

ZSA Moonlander is an easy avoid. They have a defect on their thumb cluster, the plastic that holds them to the main board is thin and breaks after a few years of use. Good thing they sell spares so they can be easily repaired but bad thing is trying to order them. They don't want just any one buying parts and even sending a photo proof you own a broken Moonlander is not acceptable, they want a receipt of the original purchase or they refuse to sell them.

You claim here that there is a cost to creating the domain but rule out Ens because it has a cost? You can't make both claims. You can generate Ethereum and buy domains with it much in the same way you do here.

You rule out DNS as it doesn't have a standard registration but IRC doesn't have a standard way to register channels nickserv isn't on all IRC and they have different implementations.

IRC is not distributed it's owned by a centralised provider who has complete control, they can trivially take over any domain they want.

IRC has no consensus mechanisms a netsplit would make it trivial to create duplicate channels on the same IRC network.

You check channel availability then register, this by definition isn't atomic, it's a race condition between check and register. You need a way to wrap this in a transaction to prevent the race condition. IRC provides no way to do transactions. Even registering a channel on a network is not atomic because of the potential of netsplits, which is stated in the rfc.

How are networks choosen and distributed? You picked 11 random servers that meet your requirements. If I pick 11 random servers how are their ips shared? Traditionally this is done with DNS but since you are trying to replace this requiring it is odd, how do you stop some one just hijacking your DNS once that problem is solved your scheme becomes pointless.

If you expect everyone to use the same 11 servers this isn't distributed, it's centralised to 11 servers you can't trust.

I think you are under the impression that IRC is distributed and so if you build a secure system on top of it, then the system as a whole will be secure and distributed. The problem is that IRC isn't secure or distributed it's centralised with no Byzantine fault tolerance.

I understand you check multiple channels/networks in an attempt to provide this protection but the underlying servers can do anything they want and there is nothing you can do about that. Finally getting to the point of being on IRC and checking a channel has a lot of attack points none of which are accounted for.

The difficult part of any distributed bysentain tolerant system is the distributed bysentain problem IRC doesn't solve this problem and your scheme outsources it to IRC.

Charcircuit is just telling you the truth you don't want to accept.

> You claim here that there is a cost to creating the domain but rule out Ens because it has a cost? You can't make both claims

It's HN, they don't understand how blinded they are by their bias against blockchain. I see these contradictions all the time and have learned it's pointless to reply.

I see what you're saying but your whole argument seems extremely black and white. It's like: you're saying that because there's a theoretical scenario where every server can over-take a name then the system as a whole isn't valid which just isn't true. A consensus system doesn't need to provide every property of a blockchain for it to be valid. Just good enough security for the problems that it solves.

>You claim here that there is a cost to creating the domain but rule out Ens because it has a cost? You can't make both claims. You can generate Ethereum and buy domains with it much in the same way you do here.

While technically true, your statements about Ethereum are misleading because as you know -- it is impractical for any random person to 'just generate Ethereum' with their computers and use it to pay for transactions. It's like you tried to make a technical argument but over-simplified it too much and left out key details for it to be meaningful.

>IRC is not distributed it's owned by a centralised provider who has complete control, >IRC has no consensus mechanisms a netsplit would make it trivial to create duplicate channels on the same IRC network.

This is true, but my design uses multiple servers. Netsplits only effect one IRC network. I am using multiple discrete networks. For the purposes of consensus it doesn't effect the software.

>You check channel availability then register, this by definition isn't atomic, it's a race condition between check and register. You need a way to wrap this in a transaction to prevent the race condition.

This is true but its also irrelevant. Either the register function manages to register enough names to meet the minimum threshold for success or it doesn't and the user can choose a different name. The design of the system minimizes such a scenario as unique TLDs, names, and passwords mitigate the potential for conflicts.

>Traditionally this is done with DNS but since you are trying to replace this requiring it is odd, how do you stop some one just hijacking your DNS once that problem is solved your scheme becomes pointless.

Every peer-to-peer application has the same issue including Bitcoin and Ethereum. It's not an issue with DNS. It's that there needs to be an initial way to know details about the network. This is called 'bootstrapping.' For now -- this is done by having a list of server IPs stored inside the software which is uploaded to a few places. Github and Pypi.

>it's centralised to 11 servers you can't trust.

This feel like you're just playing word games that mean nothing. Decentralization refers to network topologies and governmental designs wherein a single authority cannot control a system. Such a property is true about the system I've built by requiring a threshold of servers for agreement. A server doesn't individually have the power to control a name. So no it's not 'centralized.'

>I understand you check multiple channels/networks in an attempt to provide this protection but the underlying servers can do anything they want and there is nothing you can do about that

I think you've managed to miss the point of this design. It does provide a simple consensus mechanism across servers. It is mentioned in the fourth section titled 'How it should work.' I think most of your post is based on the misunderstanding that this system is simply load-balanced and doesn't include a consensus mechanism.

Since you don't use IRC for anything more than an unreliable and easily spoofable key value store, why bother with implementing an IRC client? You could easily write a client server on UDP 58 client sends the key and server replies the value. Create a list of 13 IP we just trust and run your dnssec on top of that? Ez

This is very true its the unintended consequences of engineering that cause the most harm and are most often covered up. I always think of the example of the hand dryer that can't detect black peoples hands and how easy it is for a non racist engineer to make a racism machine. AI safety putting its focus on the what if it decides to do a genocide is kind of silly, its like worrying about nukes while you give out assault riffles and napalm to kids.

Strangely I think Ilya comes out of this well. He made a decision based on his values and what he believed was the best decision for AI safety. After seeing the outcome of that decision he changed his mind and owned that. He must have known it would result in the internet ridiculing him for flip flopping, but acted in what he thought was the best interest for the employees signing the letter. His actions are wroth criticism but I think his moral character has been demonstrated.

The other members of the board seemed to make their decision based on more personal reasons that seems to fit with Adams conflict of interest. They refused to communicate and only now accept any sort of responsibility for their actions and lack of plan.

Honestly Ilya is the only one of the 4 I would actually want still on the board. I think we need people who are willing to change direction based on new information especially in leadership positions despite it being messy, the world is messy.

Its not a private company it is a non profit working in the public interest this usually requires some sort of public accountability. The board want to be a public good when they make decisions but want to be a private entity when those decisions are criticised by the public.

Yea its a bit much he obviously doesn't deserve the admiration that he is getting. That said he deserves respect for helping bring ChatGPT to market, he deserves support because the board have acted like clowns and justified it with their mission of public accountability, but have rejected the idea that the board itself should be publicly accountable.

Keeping D'Angelo on the board is an obvious mistake, he has too much conflicting interest to be level headed and has demonstrated that. The only people that benefited from all this are Microsoft and D'Angelo. Give it a year and we will see part 2 of all this.

Further where is the public accountability? I thought the board was to act in the interests of the public but they haven't communicated anything. Are we all just supposed to pretend this never happend and that the board will now act in the public interest?

We need regulations to hold these boards which hold so much power accountable to the public. No reasonable AI regulations can be made until the public are included in a meaningful way, anyone that pushes for regulations without the public is just trying to control the industry and establish a monopoly.

> new CEO grabbing bull by the balls, reassuring employees and partners and leading away from the path of Sam

I mean they did that and then fired her like 24 hours later. I think the board just looks massively incompetent because they are. Even if them firing Sam was fair, they handled it and the aftermath with a complete lack of communication or a plan. It demonstrates on its own that they are not up to the task of ensuring public transparency and accountability. I wouldn't want them overseeing a piss up at a brewery never mind skynet.