Why not to make it part of Git project? Such fragmentation adds complexity and vendor locking.

Presumably because "vendor locking" is pretty much their entire business model

I'm trying to understand what you mean, because it's not obvious to me at all. If you read LKML you'll see stacked PRs has been the norm for years. I'm assuming you want the `gh stack` porcelain into the git cli? We'd first need to add PRs as a porcelain to the git cli for it to make any sense, right?

Gerrit manages stacked changes with standard git tooling, except for the tiny change-id hook. Similar stable change identifier is also what enables Jujutsu to do its magic. Standardizing around something like this would be greatly beneficial, instead a ”gh” CLI is now needed to push a commit.

JJ, Gerrit, codebutler, and I think a couple of others have all basically agreed upon a syntax for change IDs and they are converging their prior ad-hoc formats into one; but last time I checked, the request to the upstream git team of "please don't silently drop the change-id header during rebase or amend" was met with bike-shedding about all the other hypothetical benefits that alternative formats could hypothetically provide, so universal support for the header as used in practice today is still missing D:

(I would love to be proven wrong if there's been some progress that I didn't get the memo about ^^)

This is roughly the current state of things as I know about it, that said I haven't read a lot of git's mailing list lately so it's possible that there have been some other developments.

Why not to make it part of Git project?

GitHub has about as much of a shot of doing that as I do of fixing my allergies by updating the base human genome.

higher competition increases market efficiency - this is the real value

I hope it will support nested virtualization.

Perhaps this regulation will be a major force for next gen symbolic AI systems.

Our artifacts are getting smarter, and a loose parallel with the evolution of animal intelligence suggesLs one future course for them. Computerless industrial machinery exhibits the behavioral flexibility of single-celled organisms. Today's best computer-controlled robots are like the simpler invertebrates. A thousand-fold increase in computer power in the next decade should make possible machines with reptile-like sensory and motor competence. Properly configured, such robots could do in the physical world what personal computers now do in the world of data--act on our behalf as literal-minded slaves. Growing computer power over the next half-century will allow this reptile stage will be surpassed, in stages producing robots that learn like mammals, model their world like primates and eventually reason like humans. Depending on your point of view, humanity will then have produced a worthy successor, or transcended some of its inherited limitations and so transformed itself into something quite new.

[deleted]

Your E/Fp has order 2^3 * 3 * 37991 * 21183269 * 373015308871 * 16071902378831708724506232718210977087913221837027589 and thus you can't hope for more than 86 bits of security due to Pohlig–Hellman, never mind cofactor attacks. encrypt() is also insecure (xor every byte of the message with the same shared secret byte), even if you chose a better curve.

This is much better version of the sibling comment but I'm a message board nerd and can't keep myself from pointing out that this code is probably a little bit tongue-in-cheek.

`for char in message: encrypted_char = ord(char) ^ (shared_secret[0] % 256)`

This is not real encryption, it picks only one byte of shared secret and XORs it into the plaintext. Therefore, there are only 256 possible decryption keys to check, which is trivial.

Instead, you'd want to use the shared secret as a key to something strong and symmetric like AES.

Any idiot knows not to use power-of-two! You gotta use "+13", which is prime and, therefore, *secure*.

And Twice is nice!

and more than thrice increases your chances of collision by

I don't think it's meant to be real encryption.

I suspect it was, given that they've now deleted their comment.

Huh, do you quote yourself?

great minds think alike

Once we are able to predict our lives autoregressively, we can continuously simulate and choose better outcomes by conditionally sampling from the predictive model using tree of search. Your personal AI guardian angel at scale.

They are pretty heavy due to radiation shield material requirements.

I am pretty sure material science went a long way. No need to put a foot of lead behind the reactor. The space race provided quite a bit of funding toward lightweight protection. It was too late for those plane project as they were already ramping down in the mid 60's.

Neither that or the plane powerplant are unsolavle problem, it's more of a "why would we invest this much to solve something this silly". Apparently the russians are trying to resurrect their SLAM clone and tested one. How much of this is a realistic military project versus propaganda isn't super clear to me. It's up there along with the manned military space stations in the scale of pointless deterrent PR.