Having to support legacy systems with 15y+ development where the system works but you wish you didn’t have to spend so much effort figuring out types?
Or maybe you are an expert with a framework, you are very productive with it, you know the tricks, but you wish it had types support so maintaining these systems would be easier.
Picking a “better” language or learning a framework in another language is not always a pragmatic choice.
Crux seems interesting to share app logic between platforms but I don't see how it helps actually render something. Don't you still need a gui framework that supports android or ios?
Having spent time around cross platform rollouts and development I think something like Crux is the best approach. Building a complete UI framework to rival what iOS and Android provide natively is a monumental task.
I know it’s a different context, but with this catchy title, I can’t resist pointing out that anonymity also doesn’t mean anything.
You can have cryptocurrencies in your wallet, (on most chains) you are anonymous but have no privacy, your transaction history can be accessed by anyone.
It’s all fine and dandy, you can enjoy your anonymity, about as long as you make your first transaction.
You might be anonymous, but basically you hand over your full transaction history and balance anytime you pay for a coffee or tshirt.
The term pseudonymous should be more popular. A crypto id is a pseudonym, right? In the sense that it is a consistent identity you have, just, not one that is initially tied to the identity you were born with.
Social media handles are usually pseudonymous at most.
I wonder where the figure of anonymity is. With writing style analysis, correlating pseudonyms is probably pretty easy these days. Maybe we’ll all start writing our ideas into LLMs and have them do the talking…
That's why Bitcoin isn't anonymous. Use Monero XMR instead. Much more private. Transactions can't be tracked. (Some very advanced techniques might, but they are in the process of fixing it. Unlike BTC, they do care)
And if you simply have multiple wallets and try and maintain the appearance of being disconnected, can you move funds between them without establishing a connection that unmasks you?
well the idea is to obscure it to someone looking from the outside, give enough information it can still be traced - but that's usually only possible by infosec agencies which is typically what they have access to already with normal banks.
to clarify: it can be hard to prove that two crypto addresses are the same people
There's a whole industry of commercially available products that analyze blockchains transactions for the purpose of tracing them. Anyone can simply buy these services. It is functionally accurate enough to find and prosecute criminals.
> It is functionally accurate enough to find and prosecute criminals.
Is that a high bar? I mean, you could have said that about forensic fiber analysis—and then it was revealed that the entire history of the field was just expert witnesses lying their asses off for whatever conclusion law enforcement wanted. It turns out that to prosecute criminals, being complex enough that expert witnesses can provide a smoke screen to rationalize law enforcement targeting that is actually based on prejudice and not concrete facts can be sufficient.
Nobody is being prosecuted on the basis of blockchain analysis data alone -- what I mean is that the data is good enough that that it provides information valuable enough to find the criminal in meatspace with the related physical evidence.
e.g. police look for online drug dealer with blockchain data, get warrant, bust down door, find big pile of drugs.
The point being, the data might not be "proof" on its own but it absolutely illustrates that there is no privacy on public ledgers.
depends on the wallets you use and what you do with them, being able to identify criminals is honestly a plus and if you really wanted to you could make their job *really* hard if you wanted to truly hide from an abusive government. Not being able to hide huge transactions in the millions / billions is honestly a good thing. Imagine the transparency we could get if all governments used crypto currencies instead of the walled garden that is SWIFT.
Let’s say you need three transactions a week, that’s 150 a year. How do you get the right amount of funds into these wallets? How will you get your money out? How will they not be able to track you anyway? As far as I know, you just make the identifiable wallets one hop away.
Again, I’m assuming traditional “old school” non-privacy cryptocurrencies.
There are tumbling services, where you for a fee can mix upp your transaction with lots of other users transactions to make it less obvious you where the one that transfered the credit to your burner wallet.
Kepp in mind, tumblers have also been found to keep logs that ended upp in law enforcement.
Well by design you receive crypto currency in different wallets to begin with and what funds to use, well that's simple - whatever wallet has enough cryptocurrency to cover the transaction.
Though once s hits the fan, you can just tell AI “I have no idea how any of this works andI don’t really even care but I need rate limiting, so do what you must, I trust you”.
Here’s how I would do this task with cursor, especially if there are more routes.
I would open a chat and refactor the template together with cursor: I would tell it what I want and if I don’t like something, I would help it to understand what I like and why. Do this for one route and when you are ready, ask cursor to write a rules file based on the current chat that includes the examples that you wanted to change and some rationale as to why you wanted it that way.
Then in the next route, you can basically just say refactor and that’s it. Whenever you find something that you don’t like, tell it and remind cursor to also update the rules file.
Solid approach. Don’t be shy about writing long prompts. We call that context engineering. The more you populate that context window with applicable knowledge and what exactly you want, the better the results. Also, having the model code and you talk to the model is helpful because it has the side effect of context engineering. In other words you’re building up relevant context with that conversation history. And be acutely aware of how much context window you’ve used and how much is remaining and when a compaction will happen. Clear context as early as you can per run. Even if it’s 90% remaining.
Yes, I do things like this too. Planning works great, but the same is true for making write-ups after completing a task. In this case you'd ask the agent to write up a document with all the rules for your refactoring based on the current thread (where you have discovered the rules with the agent as you go). Let it include examples and let it pause and report back to you if it comes across a situation that isn't fully covered by the current rules yet so you can review it ,update the rules, and then let it continue
Sorry, I didn't mean to be taking shots at any airplane company. I just disagree that multi-module consensus
is a reliable form of EDAC. I gave a human factor example, but there are technical reasons too.
> I just disagree that multi-module consensus is a reliable form of EDAC.
I wonder why you disagree about this? The only reason I can thing of is:
- same sw with same hw with same lifecycle would probably have the same issue. (vendor diversity would fix this)
- The consensus building unit is still a possible single point of failure.
Any other reasons you might doubt it as a methodology? It seems to have worked pretty well for Airbus and the failure rate is pretty low, so... It obviously is functional.
Modern units I'm sure have ECC, AND redundace as well.
Yes exactly, birds of a feather fail together... an A380 has three primary flight control computers, but still carries another entirely dissimilar set of three flight control computers as backup.
Well, the diversity would cover the issue with random HW failures, not the case your SW has a bug in it. As to the SW, they _sometimes_ have vendor diversity.
Regardless, there are multiple fronts you need to tackle to have high reliability so you should use all techniques at your disposal.
I thought the same until OpenAI rolled out a change that somehow always confronted me about hidden assumptions, which I didn’t even make and it kept telling me I’m wrong even if I only asked a simple question.
reply