> We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats

That can't be true, otherwise in what sense is it E2EE?

In the sense that calling it E2EE gives people a warm fuzzy feeling and makes people send more sensitive information over the platform.

Has anyone actually audited it?

Probably their auditors? Lying about this would be tantamount to (very serious) securities fraud. Not sure what you're basing on your allegations on besides "trust me bro"

Why would lying about having E2EE be securities (as in stock market) fraud? Would that make any lie ever told by a corporation equate to stock market fraud?

Yes! As Matt Levine says, “everything is securities fraud”

So if Microsoft tells me upgrading to windows 11 will make my computer better, you think that's securities fraud?

Did I say that?

Well, I've seen services describe having "E2EE" where one end is your computer and the other end is their server, so...

The metadata is still unencrypted. That also reveals quite a bit.

I mean you can read it in your app and they're not just stored on your phone. E2E just means in transport from what I understand.

E2EE means end-to-end, where the ends are the participants in the chat. They can read it on your phone, but not on their servers. They need their app to separately transmit the plaintext to their servers to read it.

Which is technically possible.

So literally what I was implying

Thanks, your install script worked for me.

In case it helps anyone else, the first time I tried to run purr I got "OSError: PortAudio library not found". Installing libportaudio (apt install libportaudio2) got it running.

Also did create a cli. I had to fork the project and removed one unused import which allowed me to remove a lot of unused ml libraries: https://github.com/Mic92/puss-say

Unfortunately upstream never looks at any pull requests.

Yes. Here's an AP article:

https://apnews.com/article/afroman-police-raid-lawsuit-ohio-...

Thanks for sharing. Much better source.

You could do signatures/MAC without encryption to guarantee that the message was not modified

Okay! Cool! Let’s just (nonsensically) develop a new protocol for this small group of nerds’ fetish for ‘retro tech’. A protocol that nobody will use.

You do realise that “is it technically possible?” Is like 1% of the question in computing, at most, yes? HTTP and HTTPS are what we’ve got.

This whole post is about Gemini the protocol, a new protocol for a small group of nerds' fetish for retro tech (it's basically modern gopher).

I just came back to check if anyone else was discussing their entry, so thanks for posting your write up!

I wrote mine by hand just testing it using the in-browser simulator. I initially used subroutines to try to keep things structured but then resorted to inlining most things (and flattening as much state as I could to bare registers) to try to speed things up, though i never quite got my ants to always move within the 64 op step.

My best score on the official test set was 654 (43rd place). I put my code and a little write up here: https://github.com/cristoper/brain.ant

Here is my entry, I managed to get up to 815 on the validation set during the event, and 825 after:

https://github.com/hukdukmukduk/brain.ant

Thanks for sharing, and congratulations!

Interesting that you didn't use dead reckoning at all to return to the nest. I didn't think I could get away with that. And somehow using a second channel to extend the trails never occurred to me.

Thanks to everyone in this chain for sharing! I've learned so much from your programs and was inspired to make my repo public and do a write up as well. I was 52nd place with a score of 599.

https://github.com/Taxes/ants

Wow. thank you so much for the writeup.

I'm just now (last few months) dabbling with agentic coding, but being an oldschool tech guy I had to dive straight into assembly. It was just too hard for me to level up my agentic skills given the deadline.

I wrote a... slightly substantial writeup: https://hallofdreams.org/posts/agents-and-ants/

Thanks!

This challenged coincided with my first dabblings into agentic coding. I wrote all my attempts in hand coded assembly, without doing any basic research. but your site is very entertaining and is reminding me of why the connection of ants/swarms cellular automata to gradient discovery to AI always blows my mind

> Thunderbird delivers RSS feed items the same way as email, so you can apply filters to mark them as "read"

This is a good idea. I use Thunderbird only for a small number of feeds I want to read every post from. I used to also use a separate feed reader for my "river of news", but eventually I stopped looking at that and just loadded hackernews or reddit when I wanted a distraction. But I might try Thunderbird for more feeds and just auto-mark most of them as read so I can browse at my leisure.

This is a nitpick, but since this essay is over 15 years old now I don't think the author will mind. This phrase always rankles me:

> Let me explain what I mean.

It turns out that if you're writing an essay or a youtube script you don't have to tell me that you're going to explain something to me before you explain it to me. I guess it acts as a "hack" to try to impart some gravity to what follows without actually having to write a convincing introduction, but unlike "it turns out" it can almost always just be deleted to improve the flow.

I think it's more like a sign post in the text. At the start of any paragraph (or sentence, really) the text may go literally anywhere--could be a new thought, a continuation of an implicit list, an explanation of what came previous, or anything else.

If you say something weird or apparently unsupported, the savvy reader at that very moment is going to be thinking so. So it's helpful to orient them like:

> Here's a wild sentence. Here's why it's not actually that wild: reasons

Without the connecting phrase, the reader has to figure out from context that out of all the possible things the following text could be doing, what it's actually doing is explaining the previous claim.

You can rightly counterpoint that it's not strictly necessary, that a savvy reader can figure it out. But I think the moment right after a wild statement is a hotspot for readers getting ready to jettison, and having a little assurance is likely very helpful.

It turns out that both phrases are used like this, similarly to how they teach in logic classes that "but" is just "and" in fancy clothing, but actual usage is quite different. Actually, a lot of language is just signpost phrasing that "helps the medicine go down" by giving hints at how the following idea will connect to this one.

---

Both phrases are used like this— let me explain:

Logic classes teach that "but" is just "and" in fancy clothing, and actual usage is quite different. A lot of language is signpost phrasing that "helps the medicine go down" by giving hints at how the following idea will connect to this one.

Language is filled with those types of phrases, the one which bugs me once it was pointed out (even though I use it myself) is "to be honest...", which could carry the implication anything said without that qualifier may be dishonest. What including those phrases seem to come down to is an informal style, a bit more acceptable in a spoken conversation but for written it probably depends on the audience.

Something I'd wonder about is if usage of it has changed based on the medium people use over the years, whether that's in-person, telephone, writing letters, or computer/smartphone writing. Has using computers for short form conversations allowed conversational phrases to bleed into formal writing.

If the literal meaning doesn't make sense, derive the meaning from the way it is used.

"To be honest" typically means "Here is an opinion that I'm embarrassed to share, and would rather lie about"

They're not lying about everything else, they're lying about that one thing, every other time.

e.g. "I tell people my favorite movie is 'The Godfather', but, to be honest, it's actually Ratatouille"

> the one which bugs me once it was pointed out (even though I use it myself) is "to be honest...", which could carry the implication anything said without that qualifier may be dishonest.

If you change it to "To Be Perfectly Honest...", then it doesn't imply that everything else was dishonest, merely elided.

> Language is filled with those types of phrases, the one which bugs me once it was pointed out (even though I use it myself) is "to be honest...", which could carry the implication anything said without that qualifier may be dishonest.

Supernatural highlights this on S1E08, at 27:28. Dean was talking with someone and starts saying "the truth is" but the other person instantly cuts him off saying "you know who starts their sentences with 'the truth is'? Liars".

Reminds me of Mark Twain’s advice to writers, “Any time you want to write ‘very’ write ‘damn’ instead so your editor will remove it.”

You also explained what you were going to explain here

I guess it's not prefatory remarks or disclaimers that I find so grating, but the explicit "I'll explain" (or worse, faux conversational "May I explain?" "Let me explain") followed immediately by the explanation.

> It turns out that if you're writing an essay or a youtube script you don't have to tell me that you're going to explain something to me before you explain it to me.

I do if I'm looking to pad the essay or video to make it longer.

That jumped out to me because you see it in YouTube videos so much now. I was surprised at the age of this post.

If you're writing a YouTube script, just, stop. They're so tiresome.

I enjoy longform yt essays. Many others do too, based on view counts

This is my project/writeup. I think it is too simple for a Show HN, but if anyone actually tries it out and finds it useful I'd love to know!

source code: https://github.com/cristoper/lichess-puzzle-timer/

I don't know when the term became widespread for gui-style terminal programs, but the wikipedia entry has existed for more than 20 years so I think it is an older term than you imply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Text-based_user_i...

Yeah, but I see your link is to "Text-based_user_interface", not "Terminal_user_interface". (Personally, I recall seeing "Textual" at least as often as "Text-based".)

The styling "Terminal" is new to me; I'm not sure I've even ever seen it before this thread. That's the "new-fangled bit for gen-Z", as others in this sub-thread have bemoaned, AFAICS.

And I must admit I rather agree with those bemoaners: It's stupid. Sure, you do run your TUI apps in the terminal, but the terminal itself is really a CLI, not a TUI. This makes the term rather misleading.

So "Text[ual|-based] User Interface" is a far better reading of "TUI" than "Terminal User Interface", IM(ns)HO.

I cloned my voice and had it generate audio for a paragraph from something I wrote. It definitely kind of sounds like me, but I like it much better than listening to my real voice. Some kind of uncanny peak.

They weirdly makes it a canny peak though :)

You do realize that you don't hear your real voice normally, an individual has to record their voice to hear how others hear their voice. What you hear when you speak includes your skull resonating, which other's do not hear.