Nethack is what you get when you take a team of developers and have them focus on gameplay to the exclusion of all else. No graphics, music, marketing, apps, action sequences, or profit motive. Just pure gameplay, with a richness of interactions and possibilities unmatched by more polished modern games. Nethack is so well balanced that, for most players, being gifted the three most powerful items in the game from the start barely affects your winning chances.
AI researchers think NetHack is interesting [1, 2]. You should too!
The refusal to provide email metadata is the most damning evidence. Adam Back clearly has the emails; he is the one who provided them in the first place during the previous court case. Everyone knows he has the emails. If Adam Back and Satoshi are two different people, the metadata should be exculpatory, and easy to share. There's literally no reason whatsoever to hide the metadata unless he is the one.
In a court of law, self-disclosure of inculpatory information cannot be compelled, so this analysis does not pass muster in a court of law. The court of public opinion, however, is quite different.
The thing is, most of the people heavily involved in early Bitcoin are fairly characterized as cryptoanarchists, a group strongly devoted to the principle of privacy and liberty effected through technological means.
The refusal to provide personal communications metadata by such a person is evidence of nothing but their steadfast commitment to the philosophy that presented them with the opportunity to be part of those email conversations in the first place.
Then again, if I weren't Satoshi, but people suspected that I was, I'd be willing to do just about anything to prove that it's not me. No one in their right mind would want that kind of target on their back.
Satoshi is either dead, or he lost his keys and probably wishes he were.
Handing over email metadata, or whatever your interrogator wants from you, will only cause them to shift the goalposts, or find something they want to find in the metadata even if it exonerates you.
There is no reason to cooperate with journalists with a slant.
His abrupt silence mid-conversation with a handful of people via email and on the main Bitcoin forum also leads me to believe he's no longer with us. Code is often written like speech where one can decipher different voices in its writing, and I have heard some suggest the beginning code did look like more than one person's writing. There's likely a few people who know/knew him personally and know what happened, but I'm fine with the desired anonymity to continue.
Or he cares more about promulgating the philosophy of cryptoanarchism than he does about his personal enrichment or safety.
Most attempts to analyze what Satoshi would do suffer from a serious theory of mind blindspot. Just a failure to imagine someone who's motivated by significantly different things than the average person. It's the same failure as when people marvel at billionaire CEOs who continue to work despite having more than enough money to satisfy their every material whim.
Yes, if I were Satoshi or Bezos I'd have fucked off to a private island long ago. But they're not like me.
Supposing it is Adam Back, and supposing he lost his keys, he's still worth at least nine figures and is one of the most influential figures in the field he’s devoted his life to. Why would he wish he was dead?
"Nine figures isn't cool. You know what's cool? Eleven figures."
That aside, I don't agree with the premise. Back might be Satoshi, but there's nowhere near enough evidence in Carreyrou's article to reach that conclusion. He should have run it by some other veteran figures in the crypto community, so they could point out how quotidian some of the language and tropes being cited really are.
it’s simply that Back has nothing to gain to claim to be Satoshi. It would make bitcoin a lot more volatile. He even said just now
> I also don't know who satoshi is, and i think it is good for bitcoin that this is the case, as it helps bitcoin be viewed a new asset class, the mathematically scarce digital commodity.
if he has the key he could buy security (move the money to a multisig, etc)
if he doesn't have the key then of course he's motivated to make sure bad people don't think otherwise (but the usual thing about bad people is they don't really have a habit of giving up without a fight, so if someone really thinks he has the keys he cannot do shit to convince them otherwise, so he's again back to hiring security)
The author didn't make a serious effort to obtain the email metadata. The email w/ metadata has previously been part of litigation, -- if it indicated that Adam was Satoshi it would have come up.
Adam has no reason to further fuck up Satoshi's privacy by sharing private information. But I can get how people who see no issue invading Adam's and Satoshi's privacy would have no concept as to why someone wouldn't publish it.
Time? He´s busy starting a company, taking the time to drag out decade old emails and digging out the meta data for a journalist who is borderline stalking (assuming he even has them somewhere). I wouldn´t give that the time of day either.
If privacy were such a big concern, then why did he release the messages (without metadata) in the first place? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to keep the messages completely private?
What would it show? If he logged in to Santoshi's email account and sent an email to his personal account, the metadata would be in order, and we would learn little from it.
You have it backwards. The fact that he doesn't release the metadata is interesting. If he had released the metadata, it would be wholly uninteresting.
I don't think the emails exist. What was published in court records, lacking metadata, could easily be forged. The metadata is harder to forge. Not impossible, but harder, especially long after the fact.
They exist, they were examined in an adversarial process in court. I carefully examined them. Stop demanding access to other people's private data-- it's gross and abusive.
The emails would not have been published in public except my opponent had an established track-record of abusing non-public communication that had been provided in response to subponea in order to further his con-- he did so with both emails produced by Gavin and emails produced by Martii.
On that basis, I encouraged Adam to agree to publish the message content-- which itself was not very interesting and matched what Adam had indirectly said for years as this would undermine our opponent's ability to abuse knowledge of that content for further fraud. The same argument didn't apply for the metadata: it has less to no abuse potential that we could come up with, publishing the email content also makes it clear to everyone that Wright had access to the material ... but there was always a risk that it exposed something less obvious about Satoshi or Adam that should be kept confidential.
Or he wants you to believe he is Satoshi, without being a complete moron, like Craig Wright. Back stands to benefit from this, because he still has money on Bitcoin ventures (Blockstream). If people believe that he is Satoshi, he would still find investors backing him.
All they had to do was exempt free and open source software from the requirements, which are unworkable in the FOSS context anyway, and they would have gotten away scot-free with their tech company pillow fight.
But no, they had to let collateral damage frag the free software crowd, which is inconsequential to their aims anyway, but 100% a huge concern for those suffering the collateral damage.
That's what OP said. Netflix and its customers have opposing interests. The customers want to use VPNs, whereas Netflix doesn't want to allow VPNs. The customers don't care about following anti-piracy laws, whereas Netflix wants to enforce them.
The situation is the opposite for age verification laws. In this case, both porn sites and their customers have aligned interests. Both sides want to allow VPNs. Both sides want to abolish age verification laws, and if that is not possible, to circumvent them.
Nothing is wrong with WebKit, but it's not really a separate rendering engine, and the discussion is about separate rendering engines. Chromium's heritage derives from WebKit.
I'm in Ontario. 90% of my electricity usage consists of charging my electric car. The ultra-low overnight rate of 2.8 cents per kWh, introduced during the past year, is a big win for EV owners. This rate is seven times cheaper than the cheapest rate mentioned in the article, and ten times cheaper than the peak rate in Ontario. It is very, very easy to schedule your car to charge during overnight hours if you have a home with a garage. You better believe that smart pricing has shifted when I charge my car! I think this kind of benefit will become more pronounced as more people shift to electric vehicles. People won't shift demand for small appliances, but when 90% of your usage is made up of one single thing that is easy to shift, you'll get some returns.
that you own a garage, that your electric bill is in your name, that your driving distance makes this worth it, that your other electric consumption is small and so on. It works for you, that's great but something you didn't mention is the higher on-peak rate.
If you have electric heating or need to charge your EV during the day, the increased rate there can easily offset your overnight rate savings.
These assumptions are not at all unreasonable. We are not talking about a tiny minority. More than half of Americans have a garage. Utilities aren't concerned about individual households; they're concerned about average behavior. I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that if even (say) 20% of households do what I do, that alone probably makes it worth it.
I drive about 15000 km per year, almost exactly the Canadian average. There are a lot of potential households fitting this profile.
(If you're needing to charge your EV during the day, then the higher daytime home electricity rate is irrelevant. My EV has a 300 mile range, which is typical. I cannot think of any scenario where I simultaneously 1) drive 300 miles in a single day, and 2) somehow also remain close enough to home to charge at home, so that the daytime home electricity rate matters, and 3) can't wait until the night to charge.)
Nor does the moral value of protecting a region hinge on its size. You'd think someone with an opinion on either side of the Israel/Palestine conflict would understand that.
Exactly. It's almost like our foreign policy has less to do with moral principles and more with picking and choosing where our 'values' apply based on convenience. Funny how that works out.
Taiwan and Ukraine are wedges against global US adversaries. An invasion of either one would threaten our influence in Europe or the Pacific. Israel isn't strategically important to us, and actually we'd have more control over the Middle East without prioritizing it, not that we have serious interest in the region to begin with.
And about Kuwait, remember why we built up their aggressor Saddam.
Not sure why Taiwan is that much of a wedge, or Ukraine for that matter. Ukraine used to be under effective Russian control anyways up to fairly recent times and Putin being pissed off about the change that's partly behind the war. Naturally now the stakes are higher given the price of the war on all sides. Re: Taiwan China is determined to get it one way or another and it's going to be hard for the US to keep resisting that.
Support of Israel goes back to JFK.
It used to be strategically important during the cold war when the US and the Soviet Union were fighting for influence. Egypt and Syria e.g. were aligned with the soviets. Israel as one example, was testing ground for western weapons against soviet weapons. The US got a lot of information out of Israel about those weapons and how to defeat them.
Weapon technology is still something important today. Israel and the US collaborate on anti-missile systems and share the testing results those systems are getting in the field. That's just one example. Americans follow Israel's tunnel fighting tactics as well. Israel has always had more human intelligence in the area and also shares that with the US.
The middle east is still important today. I guess there's oil. And as we can see shipping. Saudi Arabia that used to align with American interests has been looking in other places, has always been a somewhat questionably ally, and the stability of its regime is always a question. Egypt has been sort trending a little back to Russia but for the time being put in place. It's also not the stablest place given the Muslim Brotherhood had control and the army took over. Turkey is also becoming less US oriented. And that's practically Europe.
The US under Obama has tried to reduce its involvement in the region which indirectly led to the civil war in Syria, to Iraq aligning with Iran, and other movements. Bin Laden was from the region and so is/was ISIS/ISIL. It feels like the US "disconnecting" from the region would be a destabilizing move felt everywhere and other parties like China or Russia would fill in the vacuum.
Study some geography. The US is blessed with wide open coastal access to, not one, but two oceans, with innumerable natural harbors on each coast (Chesapeake Bay, the San Francisco Bay Area, Puget Sound, Port of NY&NJ, Port of Los Angeles, etc. etc. etc.). The US has more and better natural harbors than all of Africa. We tend to take this for granted, and forget that other countries are severely limited in comparison. These limitations are exploitable.
Russia needs Crimea because without it they have very limited access to the Black Sea, and by extension the Mediterranean and the Atlantic; their other coasts, on the Baltic and in East Asia, are not adequate substitutes. The Baltic ports in particular tend to freeze in the winter -- not good if you have global superpower aspirations.
In the case of Taiwan, look at a map of China. Although China is comparable in land mass to the US, their sea access is limited to an eastern coast enclosed almost entirely by the South China Sea / East China Sea. Look at all the countries on the other side of the Chinese coast: Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and of course Taiwan. The US has military and naval bases in most of them. In the case of Philippines, Japan, and South Korea, the US has a LOT of naval bases, notably in Okinawa, halfway between Japan and Taiwan. This is no accident. In the event of conflict, the US could easily blockade China. A quick glance at the map shows how critical Taiwan is to this calculation. If the US controls Taiwan, it owns a huge island (a.k.a. unsinkable aircraft carrier) staring down the middle of the Chinese coast. If China owns Taiwan, the east coast of Taiwan has direct access to the rest of the Pacific.
US geography is so OP that we don't realize how bad other countries have it.
(By the way, the other countries mentioned are also geographically strategic assets. Kuwait has 10 times more coastline than Iraq. Without Kuwait, Iraq has only a few ports available to ship out their oil, and no other ocean access anywhere. Israel also controls a huge chunk of the Middle East's Mediterranean coastline.)
Russia doesn't need to have territorial sovereignty over the Crimea.
The ideologues currently running Russia desire to have the Crimea for its symbolic significance -- as a means of projecting power, and of thumbing its nose at the West. And for their various internal narratives (Наш Крым and all that). Which gets a lot closer to the core issue of what the war is actually about.
It was never about Russia "needing" the Crimea in any meaningful sense. Any more than WW II was about Germany "needing" to annex the Danzig Corridor.
To the contrary, Russia does need Crimea, although military naval ports is not the main reason why. Crimean waters contain huge natural gas and oil deposits. If Ukraine were left to develop Crimea unhindered, it would overturn Russia's gas monopoly in Europe, which is practically their only source of cash. The same motive lies behind Russia's interference in Eastern Ukraine -- therein lies the rest of Ukraine's fossil fuel resources.
Russia does not actually need to extract oil and gas from Crimea, although it would be a nice bonus for them if they could. The main imperative is to prevent Ukraine from having it.
Once Russia captured Crimea, the "land corridor" to Crimea became a necessary next domino. Crimea's only source of fresh water is overland via Ukraine. Obviously the first thing Ukraine did when Russia annexed Crimea was turn off the taps. (Would you keep sending freshwater into enemy territory?) In order to maintain power in Crimea in the long run, it is necessary for Russia to invade enough of Ukraine to take over the freshwater canals that supply Crimea.
Not sure what to make of an analysis that amounts to: "To the contrary, Russia does need the Crimea, because natural gas reverses. Although it actually does not need to extract them, it would just be a nice bonus of they could." In any case we're talking about an augmentation of some 180 bcm in the offshore regions of the Crimea it is claiming, on top of Russia's proven reserves of some 40000-50000 depending on whom you ask.
So no, Russia doesn't need the Crimea's resources either. It is however definitely very hurtful to Ukraine to not have access to those resources -- which speaks more to the true intent behind the annexation move.
It is necessary for Russia to invade ...
It isn't necessary for Russia to do anything at this point -- other than pick up its toys and go home.
Gas isn't easily shippable like oil. Most of Russia's gas is in Siberia, inaccessible for purposes of shipping to Europe. Ukraine holds the only other gas reserves in Europe other than Russia. Gas supply is inelastic, meaning that even minor competition can lead to a big drop in prices. So yes, Russia "needs" to keep Ukraine out of the European gas market.
Yes, there's an incremental point to be made about the location of the gas reserves.
But to get to the real point here - why do you keep defending the actions of a blatant 19th century-style imperialist bully, as if it's some kind of calm, rational actor?
Then you could perhaps be more precise in your choice of actors here:
In particular -- Russia most certainly does not "need" to dominate its neighbors. It's just what the current regime feels it needs to do to maintain its chances of survival.
You're deeply misreading the English language. When I say "I need my phone" I am obviously not claiming that my phone is necessary for basic survival. There are different levels of need, and there exists a level where Russia (believes it) needs Crimea.
In the case of the United States, it's not appropriate to equate the country with the current regime, since the party in power (Democrat / Republican) changes every few years, and although you may disagree, I do not view the two parties as equivalent or as forming one party.
In the case of Russia, it is completely appropriate to refer to the regime by country name, since Putin has been in power forever.
Anyway, this is a useless tangent. It should by now be clear to you and anyone else reading what I mean, even if it was not initially clear.
Russia also has Novorossiysk on the black sea which is a bigger port than Sevastopol anyway. Putin had planned to move the black sea HQ there but then got a leasing arrangement with Ukraine. Was apparently still too expensive though.
>Not sure why Taiwan is that much of a wedge, or Ukraine for that matter. Ukraine used to be under effective Russian control anyways up to fairly recent times and Putin being pissed off about the change that's partly behind the war. Naturally now the stakes are higher given the price of the war on all sides. Re: Taiwan China is determined to get it one way or another and it's going to be hard for the US to keep resisting that.
I could understand Ukraine being more of an issue for Europe rather than the US but Taiwan? Without them the hottest sector in the US collapses. In fact, how much of the US current meteoric rise is due to tech vs the rest of the economy? Probably a decent chunk. Taiwan is holding some of the most important "cards" in the world.
>Support of Israel goes back to JFK.
Well you could make the argument that the US has been wrong since JFK and it is finally catching up to them. Its not the first time they have supported a state that is in direct contrast to its stated ideals.
>The US under Obama has tried to reduce its involvement in the region which indirectly led to the civil war in Syria, to Iraq aligning with Iran, and other movements. Bin Laden was from the region and so is/was ISIS/ISIL. It feels like the US "disconnecting" from the region would be a destabilizing move felt everywhere and other parties like China or Russia would fill in the vacuum.
Like it or not that has been the stated path of the US for two administrations now and will likely continue into the next one regardless of who is elected.
I'm not saying the US should disconnect, but our obedience to Israel isn't doing us favors. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran is the one counterexample I can think of, and it ended.
Syrian Civil War started only 3 years after Obama took office, and I don't see any connection to Obama reducing our involvement, if that's what he did. The US funded Syrian rebel groups both secretly before the war (leaked later) and openly afterwards (the FSA), though this stopped when ISIS formed and they began defecting, then we built that coalition to defeat them.
Btw, Israel has never fought ISIS. We fought a war against the largest terrorist group in history almost adjacent to our supposed weapons-testing, anti-terrorism ally without them being involved.
AI researchers think NetHack is interesting [1, 2]. You should too!
[1] https://proceedings.mlr.press/v176/hambro22a/hambro22a.pdf
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00690
reply