Funny concept 🗿i am like at the edge of the city

but stats are a bit broken, because it doesn't count org stars etc.., your building would probably be much higher

Cool, but this is world's second, world's first is windows 11

They do, but these are likely CI builds. These builds run on containers/vms spawned from scratch for each commit, they build, validate, publish (if a release) and then self destroy.

It is a good way to avoid any possible cross contamination between builds for security and reproducibility.

Caching here, without compromises, can be quite complex depending on the underlying system, and might require a custom build script for CI, that is often undesirable, because ideally the CI build should follow the same path as a manual build whenever possible, so it can also catch bugs in the build script itself.

The people complaining about this are the hosts of Maven Central (Java's npm), and they caused this themselves by pushing for Java build centralization. You can configure a project to use any Maven repository in Java, but it is so inconvenient and looks so suspicious or hard to verify that everyone ended up publishing to Maven Central, going through all the annoying hoops they put in place. Somehow they did not consider that they would have to host the entire world?

I think we need a nostr alternative: metadata signed and curated on nostr, payloads hosted on the dev own servers.

You mean web 6.0?

It's always javascript and npm. You should all switch to java.

Before people running this start complaining to @sox and @k00b about the site being slow…

This fires on every DOM mutation (often multiple times per load) and queries the whole document each time. With many live comments and huge threads, this can be a problem.

At the very least, the observer logic should be debounced and only act on newly added nodes.

We'd need revolut to implement lightning

isn't openclaw like 99.99% vibecoded? They are technically hiring a competitor AI through human interface 🗿

They are very powerful tools

A few days ago I put Codex on the task of translating a library from Rust to Java, and it nailed it.

Admittedly, it wasn’t a very complex codebase, but it was still pretty incredible to see, especially considering that for an human it would have been a tedious work of likely 1/2 full days, while Codex completed it in about ~20 minutes, almost perfectly.

I remember that 5 years ago, automatic translation from one language to another was only a thing of dreams and few tech demos.

I'm pretty convinced now that a lot of the work I've done over the years on cross language bindings could be done by Codex in just a few minutes, or, better yet, by translating the source library directly.

That said it is still no match for an experienced human dev, so I strongly doubt traditional coding is dead, but I think we are going to see more single dev+agent teams going forward, where the dev focuses on complex tasks while the agent can write the glue and maintain the boilerplate.

What was the malicious code doing?

Qerko was a diamond in the rough for paying in Bitcoin at restaurants in the Czech Republic. Merchants using payment processors needed to KYC for a fucking coffee.
Merchants who take the payment on a self custodial wallet are fine.

So, paying through a payment processor is like paying with mastercard, both parties need to be KYC, while paying p2p is like cash and no KYC needed?

If that's the case, it is good for bitcoin. It makes clear what is bitcoin (p2p cash) vs IOU virtual currencies

slopstr, i hope at least notes are sloptagged

Weird indeed... i don't think its related to BNB, though, since they are converting specifically the recovery fund only to bitcoin....

Maybe they are preparing to survive a market wide naked short squeeze?

If you need to honor bitcoin withdrawals, having fiat in the recovery fund won't help if there is not enough bitcoin being sold in the market...

pretty sure it is just people larping agi or llms prompted to act unhinged

Framework maybe? But, I mean, all the hardware comes always from few big manufacturers.

I don't think anyone is bugging hardware on purpose... it would be very inefficient, hard to target and potentially dangerous. It is more likely for backdoors to be always delivered, to targeted individuals, by software that can be updated, patched and destroyed.

So I guess my recommendation is to install Linux 🗿and use full disk encryption

Check this out: Bisq DAO.
It's basically a self sustained microeconomy, fees are just a part in this, but i suppose it can work without, especially on Bisq easy that afaik is purely reputation based

Jeff Bezos is overestimating the quality of networks around the world, it is not just bandwidth, you need low latency for an experience that is close to local hardware.

We are going to see mainstream ARM PCs and chinese GPUs before cloud renting.

Your point about using btc and 110, versus the awful mess I made in the OP is accurate. I was trying to avoid antagonizing anyone by labeling one side or the other as the "true btc" side

Fair. I am not trying to antagonize either, if the bip manages to win, it'll become BTC, i suppose. Can't really call BTC something that is not yet deployed.

"Wipeout" in this context means orphan. As in the 110 chain is valid as far as the btc nodes see, and therefore if it ever accumulated enough PoW, the btc side of the split would be orphaned and all nodes would see the 110 chain as heaviest valid chain.

I see... this gives them the same chances as anyone trying to rollback the chain, so it all boils down to thinking there are stronger arguments for B110 that eg. CZ that time asking to "pls rollback the hack", that is IMO true, but not even close to be enough to have that confidence in the outcome.

It is very hard to follow along with all this BIP-110 nonBIP-110 naming, can we just agree to call the current consensus BTC and whatever proposed fork as B + its BIP number, so BTC vs B110 ?

That said, maybe i am missing something, but isn't this an asymmetric disadvantage actually?

Since the BTC clients can accept both BTC and B110 blocks, they will always see a fresh chain, while B110 clients will have two options:

• willingly accept BTC blocks that they deem harboring potentially harmful illegal content, until they win the upper hand
• risk falling behind several blocks

not sure which of the two options is implemented in the BIP110, but i assume the 1st, or we wouldn't be having this conversation since luck won't help defeat the accumulated POW if they don't start as a majority

If the 1st option is implemented, it is true that B110 clients could gain an upper hand and cause a reorg, but that would realistically affect only the latest few blocks, and it would be just like any other reorg that could happen at any given time.

The only difference is that usually reorgs happen once in a while and by mistake, on the contrary B110 would be akin to a prolonged attack on bitcoin.
If somehow this manages to last very long, the chain will slow down, fees will skyrocket (since tx in orphaned blocks go back in the mempool) and ultimately miners will join the chain that gives an higher chance of recouping their losses, that would be the BTC chain, since it will have more transactions and so more fees.

Thank you

Good news. For additional context, they allegedly built this censorship technology for the football lobby, which was crying about illegal streams.

Yes, it's that REGARDED. Also, they allegedly basically have no idea what they are doing, because they ended up banning google drive several times, and they allegedly posted their porn searches online on a pdf document by mistake.