robryk @robryk@qoto.org

@mcc @munin

If we talk about rewards for me and denote moves by [my move][other's move] and assume symmetric game then normal prisoner dilemma has deco>coco>dede>code. You are proposing that code has a larger reward. Do you mean that it's between coco and dede (so deco>coco>code>dede)?

@mcc @munin

You mean if it was better than "both cooperate" but worse than "I defect, the other cooperates"?

@munin @mcc

If your cost of wearing a mask is sufficiently high (so that it's larger than the benefit from reduction of likelihood of getting infected by _also_ wearing a mask).

@lumi

I agree on undesirability, but want to point out two situations when it can be a security feature (if there wasn't a stream of exploits against the variants I know of): selling computational power without ability to see what the buyer is doing and poor man's cloneable HSM with potentially much more complicated logic inside (which would export keys, but only to instances of itself running someplace else).

@_thegeoff

Maybe driving an acoustic guitar like a speaker? (The more interesting way that I haven't seen done would be to do it via conductive or ferromagnetic strings. Vibrating the body could still be interesting on its own, because you ~won't be able to excite some modes from some locations.)

@blaine

You technically could do that with ActivityPub (each post has a replies collection that whoever hosts the post can control) and technically can have a client that will refuse to show replies that aren't present there.

Sadly (I think), replies to replies would be under the control of the first replier (as opposed to OP). For that reason I think that every system that has the property you want needs to treat posts and replies as different kinds of entities.

@lauren @FLGLchicago @hackbyte

What properties would a good term have?

@munin

Hm~ yes, this is not a situation where one needs to coordinate, so just doing that works.

Sorry for rambling, I should probably go to sleep.

@munin

But that's also allowed in the byzantine general's problem? There's no restriction on what messages can be passed around there.

If you can only do that in pairwise conversations, sussing out malicious people who say different things depending on who they speak with (and claim falsely what they've said to/heard from others) is nontrivial. Having a way to make a statement that ~everyone can see (and that no one will see a different version of, and that everyone can trust to have this property) makes that much simpler.

@munin

The communication has to happen under Byzantine fault conditions sometimes though, given that people will sometimes be maliciously dishonest in different ways when interacting with different people. But I think I overestimated how much worse this makes things, because after all everyone has an equivalent of a broadcast primitive.

@munin

Fair point; generally being more proactive about getting the other side's story is both generally good and completely(?) mitigates this problem.

@munin

IRL it's very obvious that the complaints are hidden from the target of the complaints. The situation I'm trying to paint is one where this is not obvious to others (because the complaints are ostensibly public, and yet not available to the target of the complaints specifically).

I guess you expect people not to treat "complaint is public" as "B likely has seen the complaint", and explicitly talk to B?

@munin

How does this model handle the case of person A making otherwise-public-but-not-available-to-B disparaging statements about B? (I assume -- potentially incorrectly -- that the A's lack of consent for B to read the statements is not publicly visible, because that's typically the case.) (I can imagine the way this usually happened on Twitter -- that ~everyone knew this to be a possibility and thus interpreted B's silence differently -- but wonder if you have some other possible solution in mind.)

@8petros

Dla każdego epsilon znajdziesz takie N, że z prawdopobieństwem 1-epsilon ta wartość będzie bliżej niż epsilon do spodziewanej liczby.

@8petros

2 nie jest prawdziwe w tej formie. Prawdziwe jest, że przy odpowiednio dlugich seriach rzutów c(I)/n będzie dowolnie blisko 1/6, ale c(I)-n/6 nie będzie się zbliżało do zera (tak naprawdę będzie rosnąć jak sqrt(n)).

@littlescraps @fafo

I think this is a _very_ weird way to say "don't turn on without water inside/in the circuit". I suspect that the reason for the weird phrasing is that it was written by someone who didn't know English apart from technical vocabulary (so knew how to say anhydrous, and used "boot" in the sense of "booting").

@fafo

Aren't you missing one `no` emoji or an equivalent? (Anhydrous means devoid of water.)

@regehr

My main worry would be whether there isn't something tricky around horizontal operations (e.g. that ones that cross some boundary are much slower, or that only a few of them are passably fast).