Super Mail Forward : an email that evolves as you forward it
Last year, Litmus held a community contest which theme was “Emails Worth Forwarding”. In order to participate, I created an email I called…
@pantheressy.2248834 • Threads, Say more
0 Followers • 2 Threads. See the latest conversations with @pantheressy.2248834.
After self-hosting my email for twenty-three years I have thrown in the towel. The oligopoly has won.
Many companies have been trying to disrupt email by making it proprietary. So far, they have failed. Email keeps being an open protocol. Hurray? No hurray. Email is not distributed anymore. You just cannot create another first-class node of this ne
I've been dying to talk about the mail with you all day
57K votes, 411 comments. 719K subscribers in the NonPoliticalTwitter community. Twitter and Bluesky without the politics. Come vibe with us as we…
Mozilla and the Washington Post Are Reinventing Online Comments | The Mozilla Blog
To engage readers, build community, and strengthen journalism, Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform will be integrated across washingtonpost.com
Self-hosting email the hard way from your own routable IPv4 block up
How we refreshed self-hosted Recoil email with our own RIPE-allocated IPv4 block, and deployed Postfix/rspamd/Dovecot to get full SPF/DKIM/DMARC deliverability.
Announcing the Centre for Cryptographic Trust Infrastructure
You’re getting this email because you subscribed to my blog posts at martin.kleppmann.com.
Scott Alexander (@astralcodexten)
@Venkatesh Rao wrote a long post against effective altruism. His page provided a comment box, so I spent an hour or so composing a comment. Then when I hit post, I got an error message saying that only paid subscribers’ comments would be posted. I tried to reply to his Substack Note on the post, but was hit with an error message saying that was limited to paid subscribers too. Then I tried to private message it to him, but got another error saying only paid subscribers could private message him. I don’t want to have completely wasted the hour, so I’ll put it here. I’m not going to link his original post, because I don’t want to encourage people to paywall their comment sections by signal-boosting people with paywalled comments. ————————————————— Sorry, this is a kafkatrap. We try hard to read everything we can from other traditions and engage with them (see eg https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/criticism-of-criticism-of-criticism). If you'd like me to find twenty rationalist essays discussing out-of-model error and how we should think about it, I don't think that should be too hard. The problem isn't that we haven't thought about this or tried hard to deal with it. It's that whenever anyone believes anything at all, faux-profound thinkers can always just point to them sagely and say "Hmmmm, seems like they believe their own beliefs more than other people's beliefs, that sounds like something a fanatic would do, what a bunch of arrogant exclusive fundamentalist cultists who don't understand the value of pluralism." And the problem isn't that we've tried to claim the only seat at the table and prevent other people from contributing. The problem is that we begged everyone to help with the problem for fifteen years, and everyone else just laughed and said "You're a dumb doomsday cult, no smart person has EVER thought AI could be dangerous, I bet you've never read books and worship your own intelligence, hahaha!" So eventually we tried to do some of the work ourselves. Now that reality has dragged (some) other people, kicking and screaming, into admitting there's a problem, the only thing they can think to do is talk about how it's sure suspicious that we haven't immediately stepped aside and handed over all of our projects to the people who spent the last fifteen years bullying us and refusing to lift a finger to solve the problem. We are unfortunately in the short-line-booth / long-line-booth meme, where the short-line-booth says "working on AI safety", and the long-line-booth says "criticizing the people who work on AI safety". And working on it wouldn't even have to involve anything as embarrassing as agree with effective altruists about anything. Dan Hendrycks hates EAs as much as anyone, and even wrote his own version of this “EA safety” post a few days ago, but he’s taken time out of his busy schedule of hating EAs to make valuable contributions to the field of AI safety, and now he’s Elon Musk’s AI safety advisor and has far more power than all but a tiny handful of EAs, and also EAs keep throwing money at him. Dean Ball spent the past five years disagreeing with effective altruists about everything, but he did a competent job of it, didn't use any ethnic slurs or lapse into speculation about our sex lives, and he probably knows what chain-of-thought monitorability is, so people (including effective altruists) keep giving him power and influence, and now he’s Head of Strategic Futures at OpenAI, and I am very happy he has that job (even though he called me a has-been blogger who was “woefully misinformed”). Even the people who do speculate about our sex lives, and who may or may not know what chain-of-thought monitorability is, keep getting handed power and influence by our enemies - David Sacks was (is?) the chief AI policy-setter for the US federal government! But you've got to be in the game! (also, because “EA” has become a sort of catch-all term for people who care about AI safety at all, it already hides a lot of diversity. In case you haven’t noticed, Dario Amodei and Eliezer Yudkowsky hate each other and disagree on everything.) You're right that a good well-designed AI safety ecosystem needs inputs from many different groups and ways of thinking. There are great, smart people who disagree with us, and my impression is that the effective altruists are trying hard to engage with them and share what sliver of power they have with them. But I reject the sort of naive hyper-pluralism where Scientologists, Nazis, and moon-landing-denialists should be able to walk up to Bell Labs or Harvard or Google and say "move aside, nerds, or else you're blinkered fanatics who refuse to let anyone else have a seat at the table". Insofar as EAs have any power - and right now, it's a tiny fraction of the power held by the actual power-holders like the Trump administration and Big Tech, who generally hate us - I think a minimum bar to sharing it with other people is that those other people haven't spent the last fifteen years insisting that the problem didn't exist and trying to destroy anyone who claimed it did, without doing any useful object-level work. This post, which parrots all the worst accusations and then places the entire demand to step aside on us, rather than on the more powerful group of people who oppose us, pattern-matches to that to me, and is among the many things I will not be considering when deciding how to share whatever miniscule fraction of an iota of influence over the future I might have gathered. But don't worry, I'm sure "EA safety" will attract far more people than the boring and thankless work of AI safety ever did.
RFC - Request for comments
RFC - Request for comments
RFC - Request for comments
RFC - Request for comments
Just updated my @val.town based fediverse bridge (bsky -> mastodon) to include self reply threads. Don't know why I did not get around to that before but with that change it's pretty much feature complete now I think val.town/x/tijs/atproto-to-fediverse
tijs/atproto-to-fediverse
www.val.townSubstack's CEO now trying to scare people into *only* distributing their content through their proprietary app, not email. (The link he posted warns users away from email.) It's not enough that Substack's locking in publishers & readers with "notes" and comments, now they're escalating tactics.
New project! I recently needed feedback on a doc I was writing and didn't have a good place to post it. So I built requested.fyi. Post docs, get comments, all on the Atmosphere. disnetdev.com/blog/rfcs-on-the-atmosphere
RFCs on the Atmosphere
www.disnetdev.com
