I'm no chemist, but according to wikipedia, cuscohygrine is found in belladona plants and it metabolizes into hygrine. So that could be what he's referring to?
I read the same wikipedia page and that statement is confusing if not incorrect. Hygrine is a not a metabolite of cuscohygrine, it's in fact the other way round: hygrine is the precursor and cuscohygrine is the metabolite.
The first reference on that page is "The role of hygrine in the biosynthesis of cuscohygrine and hyoscyamine"
IIRC Palladium
is mainly run by the more libertarian-oriented rationalist/lesswrong types. Or at least, I've only seen it recommended by those types. I think it's funded by Peter Thiel.
I don't think there's a real need to justify technological progress as a default. That has been the default for at least a century or so, and I think it's done us quite well. The unorthodox thing is the idea that we should avoid technological progress, and if there isn't good evidence for that, then we should ignore it.
>[Technological progress] has been the default for at least a century or so, and I think it's done us quite well.
Such progress has presented an existential threat only once previously in the past century, and that was the development of nuclear weapons. The jury is still out on whether that was the right decision. I don't think the argument that, "Well, nothing bad has happened yet!" is very persuasive in the face of possible extermination of the human race.
It's escalated humanity's incapability to look toward the future or do long-term planning in any reliable kind of way very problematic. It's also made the tendency for humans to go to war significantly more problematic for everyone that isn't already a murdering loon.
While there's plenty of positive effects of the march of technological progress, let's not pretend it's done us an unequivocally good turn. The state of the environment is enough to explain that.
> In philosophy, Pascal's mugging is a thought experiment demonstrating a problem in expected utility maximization. A rational agent should choose actions whose outcomes, when weighted by their probability, have higher utility. But some very unlikely outcomes may have very great utilities, and these utilities can grow faster than the probability diminishes. Hence the agent should focus more on vastly improbable cases with implausibly high rewards; this leads first to counter-intuitive choices, and then to incoherence as the utility of every choice becomes unbounded.
Curiously enough, this idea can be traced to one of the most prominent AI Safety advocates.
AFAIK there is no mechanism for content blocking. The "bad relays" are relays that deanonymize, store,
delay, or in any other way hamper user's traffic.
Israel used phone location data to target and kill Palestinians, with a sub-90% accuracy rate, supposedly. Probably not a big concern right now in America, but it could always turn into one. So I think it'd be good if this wasn't a possibility. Better safe than sorry.
If the endgame of passwords is for everyone to use password managers for their passwords, and never to actually learn their passwords, then why bother with passwords at all? It seems to endgame would be for every service to give up passwords, and switch to OTP codes entirely. I'd prefer that world, honestly. Yet I haven't seen many people talk about the possibility, so maybe I'm missing something obvious? I don't know.
> If the endgame of passwords is for everyone to use password managers for their passwords, and never to actually learn their passwords, then why bother with passwords at all?
I remember! He was happy about it -- until he found out that the NYT was going to doxx him and publish his name, which would've likely had highly negative effects for himself and his psychiatric patients. The NYT didn't care, of course -- and they attempted to cover him a lot more negatively, as a result of the backlash they received.
That's an interesting take. An alternative take is he desperately sought to become a public intellectual for personal reasons- while simultaneously believing this would hurt his patients, and declared this the New York Times's problem.
I thought he regularly preaches the presumption of good faith, even when discussing some of the most radical people in the world, interesting how that's not extended to the NY Times for the sin of... using a real name policy?
> If we're going to be trusting some random guy's binaries, I think we are in the right to demand that it is byte-for-byte reproducible on commodity hardware
I don't think anyone has a right to demand anything of the project. The MIT license specifically has the whole "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS" spiel for a reason. Thinking that you can demand anything of an open source developer who, afaik, has no responsibilities in relationship towards you, is a rather toxic mindset that should be kept out of open source.
"No one has any right to complain because muh license agreement"
What a tiring argument. Why complain about anything? Why do anything differently? Maybe it's because people have invested time, money, and effort into supporting and using the project and because of your stupid decision they now have to do more work. There were a lot of comments about people showing up that monday to pin+vendor the old SerDe. Others planned to remove it entirely in favor of other libraries. Almost like actions have consequences even if your "license agreement" says otherwise.
> is a rather toxic mindset that should be kept out of open source.
I wish I lived in your echo chamber where everyone who uses your stuff is just totally, like, accepting of your garbage ideas. The precompiled binary idea was a classic garbage idea. Refusing to make it reproducible was just the corn on top of the cowpie. The author made a major screw up, doubled down, tripled down, and then finally gave in. The author has no idea what scale and scope of project this is used in. They also clearly did no evaluation on potential damage OR ask for feedback before moving it into mainline. For a library with 3M+ downloads this was the what third? Fourth? Classic ego-driven folly.
You know what else shouldn't exist in open source? Ego tripping morons.
I'm not sure why you are attacking the guy personally and saying he lives in an echo chamber. All he did is say that you can't demand anything of the guy as he has not obligation to do anything. That's in the agreement that you agree to when using the software.
He's free to tank his own project and you are free to use it, fork it, or not. He's allowed to be an ego maniac if he wants or do things in ways you disagree with. You got what he made for free, so why you want to demand things of him is beyond me.
It was demonstrated that his precompiled binary saved almost no time in the original, now locked and cleaned, issue.
I don't care what he does with his library. You're right. At the same time you can't "do whatever you want" when you have a 3M+ download library even if you do own it. It would be like if you suddenly decided an entire metropolitan is wrong and you're right. You need A LOT of evidence to do that. There are practical limitations to your personal freedom when so many people depend on you. Even if you want to believe that isn't the case how many potential sponsors, contributors, etc do you alienate with such a stupid idea in a pool of 3M? Even if it's 1% thats 30,000 people who now will do absolutely nothing to help you.
I'd say that the core of your point is legally correct, but you are ethically arguing over what is, at best, a grey area. I mean, if the author is explicitly (by you) "allowed to be an ego maniac", then why isn't the user you are replying to allowed to judge them for it? The options available here are not merely to use it or to fork it: people being afforded the same freedoms you believe this maintainer should have also have the option to call them out over the result, no?
I'm not here to argue the morality of it. I'm just saying it's silly to complain about something and demand something of him. I mean I can demand a super model will give me a date but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to it or that it's going to happen. It's pretty much pointless.
The difference between this guy and the maintainer is that the maintainer did this guy a huge favor by writing this software for the guy where as this guy did nothing except complain about the free meal he's getting.
Do we as humans owe anything at all to each other outside of a capitalistic transaction-based framework?
I think the burden of open source maintenance often goes too far in the other direction, especially when corporations demand free labor, but I think it's reasonable to expect maintainers of core libraries to not actively cause harm.
What harm did he cause? He did something the way he wanted to. People didn't like it. You seem to think that the maintainer owes you something. Sure he can't do something illegal but other than that it's all available to him. But he also has to live with any repercussions of his actions.
Beyond the reputational harm to the Rust community, he actively engaged in attention-seeking behavior, something that is against the Rust Code of Conduct. (He's far too intelligent to not know that it was attention-seeking behavior.)
The Rust Code of Conduct doesn't apply to him at all. That is something that the Rust maintainers are following.
I can't speak to his motivations, but nothing that you've said seems to be against any law or any sort of agreement he's made. This is his software, he can do with it what he wants. If you don't like it just don't use it.
You can't police him, you can complain about him, but you seem to making up violations he has committed that are mostly made up, rather than based on any actual agreement he has entered into.
> Maybe it's because people have invested time, money, and effort into supporting and using the project and because of your stupid decision they now have to do more work.
Less time and money than rewriting the thing from scratch.
That’s not true. I can, for example, demand that an open source project not bundle malware. The maintainer may not listen to me but I reserve the right to demand it and I don’t see how this is toxic at all.
