I think it’s easier to conceive of it like this: Each point in spacetime IS storage. Storage can be queried by interacting with it (in a variety of ways), though the process of querying affects the value not only of the querier, but also the queried, which may have side-effects as well. The interaction itself is the computation.
A simple example for the computation: It’s like placing boxes next to each other. Yes I could say 1 box + 3 boxes = 4 boxes, via explicit calculation. I could also simply place 1 box next to three boxes, and without having to explicitly calculate, by nature of the interaction, the result (4 boxes) has been produced
There is no background computation or storage. The universe IS computation and storage. Each spacetime quanta IS storage, and each interaction IS computation.
Spacetime isn't quantized as far as we know. We don't know since we don't have quantum gravity or ability to probe Planck scale. Quantum fields are continuous, it is excitations in the field, particles, that are quantized.
Ah, I thought we didn’t have strong evidence either way. Regardless, I shouldn’t have stated spacetime quanta so matter-of-factly. I just have an easier time conceptualizing if I treat everything like hypervoxels and that leaked in.
There are even some philosophers/mathematicians who attest to finitism (they’re not mainstream, though), but if correct would undermine our idea of fields and continuous structures more broadly
I have some experience with zkp, so I’ll try to answer your question to the best off my ability. First on the terminology, the “attester” in this case I assume is whoever is anchoring the data or issued the credential you’re trying to prove. For the canonical example, let’s say you’re trying to prove age >= n via a government ID.
1. The site does not know who you are. This is the whole point. You generate a mathematical proof you possess a valid government ID that says “age >= n”
2. Yes. You are generating a zkp based on information anchored by the attester. In this case the ID issuing gov. That attester can be something other than a gov, but zkps are a bit useless if the site doesn’t know what exactly is being proved. In this case you are proving “I possess a government ID saying age >=n”. You must know about the government to care about this proof.
3. Not in this case. The attester only knows it has issued you an ID, but does not need to be further consulted. You could certainly construct a scheme such that you require a ZKP of recent written permission from some entity, but this is not inherent to ZKPs.
4. This is a UX question. If the ZK wallet and website are implemented in such a way that it’s always displayed when a credential is requested and what credential that is, then yes.
The attestor gives you a credential once. You can think of it as a dob (in e.g. days since 1900) with a digital signature.
Then when you want to access something age gated, you locally generate a proof that says “I have a credential signed by X, with DoB N, and N < CutOff date” where X and the CutOff date are public but the credential and the value N are hidden through the ZkP.
The attestor isn’t involved so doesn’t learn anything. The Verifier only learns the public information, and generally won’t be able to tell if two proofs are made with the same credential.
AFAIK, If the scheme is designed properly, then no. The attestor only knows who they have issued certificates to and the verifier only knows that they have a user that has been verified by that user. Neither the attestor or the verifier can link the two any further than that, even if they collaborate.
That depends on the setup but is not related to the ZKP part. “who is requesting the proof that person X has a gov ID where age >= N” is irrelevant in the context of the proof.
> For the American market and the October 2001 release, the cover art of Is This It was changed to a psychedelic photograph of subatomic particle tracks in a bubble chamber.
My sister, who is two years younger, was in 8th or 9th grade when this album came out. She's also a Weezer and Radio Head fan. Only a few years difference but I feel this genre came after me.
people like hope. In Dickens era the hope was that you'd discover you were a long lost bastard child of some wealthy aristocratic family. These days, its that you win the lottery.
We shouldn't conflate permitting lotteries which give a lot of people precious hope, with enabling the disease of gambling addiction. Gambling addiction transforms its victims into desperate degenerate messes, who will do anything in order to reverse the outcome of their losses. By popularising gambling on reality (instead of a sandbox like sport) we're creating a future where such people will harass journalists, which further threatens our increasingly precarious relationship with truth.
Because there's pre-existing demand for lottery tickets that provides some plausible deniability for the money-laundering use case. If prediction markets were primarily used to buy insurance against hard-to-avoid expensive events, that's what money launderers would trade in too, in order to blend in.
Instead, most volume is in sports bets. People just like to gamble.
Voting adults can’t necessarily afford or arrange childcare which is a legitimate reason to bring their non-voting children.
Effectively all non-voting children will one day be voting adults. Exposure to politics before participating in politics is valuable not only for them, but for everyone who will be eventually governed partially by their vote. Legitimate reason #2.
Regardless of the lack of vote, non-voting children are still governed by elected officials, giving them legitimate reason #3 to interact with politics, even if they can’t do so in the form of a vote yet.
You’ve picked a poorly thought out hill to die on.
That's a very well-reasoned argument. It is perhaps a shame that it's been placed against the most absurdly sarcastic train of thought I could come up with ("Coloring books have no legitimate purpose at such an event, and therefore nor do children"), but your take remains well-reasoned nonetheless.
---
I won't be in NYC tomorrow. But if I were planning to go then there'd be a good chance I'd pack my usual way for a short-duration trip: A backpack with a laptop, a change of clothes rolled up tight, and a Raspberry Pi.
Some people bring things like cards or a [coloring] book, but those are not my preferred styles of distraction.
SBCs like that don't take up much space. They pack fairly well and give me something out-of-band to goof around with when I'm traveling and bored, where my usual household distractions don't exist.
I get some pretty creative systems stuff done on them sometimes by creating some whimsical problem, working out the steps for a solution, and then implementing it and seeing how it plays out -- in the field, away from my usual pile of resources. It's fun for me.
There's almost certainly some manner of Pi already in my bag right now, left over from my last trip -- probably housed in one of those cheeky red-and-white plastic cases that the Pi Foundation offers.
It would not be a huge loss if I had to dumpster it like a forgotten nail clipper at the airport after 9/11, but it sure would be surprising. It's not a particularly devilish device and has never attracted any sort of attention, and I would never have reasonably expected it to do so.
I guess if Russia invaded Western Europe and Putin decided to switch from Cyrillic to Latin script so the subjugated peoples would more easily read and learn Russian, that would be neutral too?
About the "bad argument", I can't argue with you, because I'm not the one arguing. You'll have to take it up with the author of these lines:
"In a hundred years, our language will be the European language. The nations of the east, the north and the west will, to communicate with us, learn our language. The prerequisite for this: The script called Gothic is replaced by the script we have called Latin so far"
(Besides, what's so strange about transposing Cyrillic to Latin? It happens all the time even today when people don't want to or can't switch keyboard layouts.)
A simple example for the computation: It’s like placing boxes next to each other. Yes I could say 1 box + 3 boxes = 4 boxes, via explicit calculation. I could also simply place 1 box next to three boxes, and without having to explicitly calculate, by nature of the interaction, the result (4 boxes) has been produced
There is no background computation or storage. The universe IS computation and storage. Each spacetime quanta IS storage, and each interaction IS computation.