MiddleKnight

According to an unsourced claim on Wikipedia, "repetition is the essential comedic device"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedic_device

“Hundred” in Germanic Europe used to be 120 before the Romans came and introduced their “century” with a value of 100. This is still known as “the long hundred”

12, 60, 120, 360 are the first superior highly composite numbers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_highly_composite_number

These number divides neatly into integer parts in many ways for their size.

They are also the basis of many pre decimal counting systems, some of which are still around. 360 degrees in a circle. 12 hours in a day.

The Babylonian’s used base 60. We still do for time as you pointed out. The minute refers to a minute(as in small) part of something. The “second” is the “second minute”. Ie a minute divided into minutes. This system is also used for geodetic cordinates. Where we have arc minutes and seconds.

Is this real?

Hire someone to manage my money.

It always bothers me when it says "no smoking" first and then "safety first" second. If you are serious about safety first, put it first!

That would then be an entirely different situation?

There are many reasons one might use inheritance. The one which is often first introduced by OOP proponents is creating a “is-a” relationships in some domain model where the goal is to somehow model “real life” with classes and objects.

This always ends badly in my experience. Not worth doing. Just consider the “rectangle square controversy” https://henrietteharmse.com/2015/04/18/the-rectanglesquare-controversy/. Inheritance as a domain modelling tool doesn’t really mean anything outside of textbooks talking about animals and vehicles.

One should understand how computers and programming work and model data in a way which makes sense for the concrete scenario. Look in any algorithms and data structures book. Nothing is ever explained and presented through object models. No UML diagrams needed.

But inheritance also bring actual concrete functionality. In particular dynamic single dispatch. If you need dynamic single dispatch, inheritance is good. That being said, I think that parametric polymorphism (“generics” in OOP terminology) is a better solution than subtype polymorphism in almost all cases. Although languages build around OOP and inheritance sometimes make it too inconvenient to use.

I fail to see what blockchain can provide in the realm of audit logging?

Fundamentally, you need to trust the systems which are logging events to log the correct events at the correct time. How does blockchain change this?

Identically named does not imply identical. Could be totally different communities with the same name. Or there could be subtle but important differences.

Likewise differently named does not imply that two communities are not essentially the same.

Having some form of grouping could be an idea that might be useful to some. I imagine different people would like it to function in different ways.

But it is entirely orthogonal to naming. At the end of the day abc@instance1 is a different name than abc@instance2.

Chill people usually don't go straight to waving their constitutional rights in other people's faces at the first sign of any minor disagreement.

Twix are chocolate bars which comes wrapped two identical pieces in one wrapper. OP can apparently tell the difference by taste which is absurd.

RIP everyone who doesn't live exactly on the ecliptic.

The amount of time which the sun shines has very little to do with half of 24 hours most of the year where I live.

How does Lemmy have more avenues for admin abuse than Reddit? On either platform, the admins can technically do whatever they want. (Including editing users posts, spez). Lemmy makes it easier to just go somewhere else. At the end of the day that is all you can do.

Then sign and send the audit log in realtime to the authority which A provided their logs to. Same effect no blockchain.

You could also encrypt and publish it. But realistically there is always going to be some entity actually responsible for enacting the consequences for non-compliance and they are the only entity that really ever needs to check these logs.

I am not sure I understand what the incentives to "mine" this blockchain would be. Without a certain block difficulty, which requires many miners, it will be trivial to rewrite the entire chain.

The wrapper is not symmetrical. You can consistently define a left and right bar of a given Twix in an unambiguous way.

Any system which publishes the log to third parties as they are written would do that.

The most water-like thing I am allowed by your very contrived rules. Maybe water with two slices of cucumber.

No.

Also Lemmy is not trustless at all, which is a very important part of crypto. In fact the reason that crypto can’t really do anything worthwhile is because it has to be completely trustless.

10 years ago people would write "this^" without a trace of irony on Reddit. So you are kinda ruining the experience by being semi-ironic.

How does a private blockchain work? It is my impression that the security of the block chain comes from the difficulty of mining a new block. This in turns depends on having many entities competing for mining the next block because they get some type of financial incentive.

Wouldn't a private block chain just essentially be like git? In git I can easily rewrite the entire history of my "log" by just rehashing everything. It is just git rebase. For anybody to verify I had not done this, they would always need the newest commit/log entry. So until the time I choose to publish a log entry, I am free to rewrite it and everything after it. Which is exactly the same as if I didn't use a blockchain.

It just seems like the blockchain solution depends on publishing log entries to a third party as they happen, but once you do that, the problem is already solved and you don't need a blockchain.

But I might not properly understand how private blockchains work?

You could do the same by broadcasting your events to all your peers and having each peer save everyone's events.

But this is also a prerequisite to running a blockchain right? This is essentially the mempool. Then you have a layer on top which does more stuff (the actual blockchain part)

Surely implementing only the sending of log event is simpler than also adding all the hashing and consensus stuff(which in practice adds no real utility) on top?

Sorry about deleting the post. Couldn't remeber if beehaw was one of the instances with rules again dissenting opinions after some time away from Lemmy (I'm pretty sure there was one which would rather be without).

But I think you managed to quote most of it.

Being wanted/needed should be viewed in relation to everything else you could do with the resources available is my point. Not only your particular hobby/interest.

And I still maintain that if you want pure art, you are better off lowering your expectations for professionalism and find people who do it for reasons that are not financial.

You are claiming that

1. a blockchain would somehow make it easier to detect tampering or make stronger guarantees about the log integrity (I think you are being a bit vague here honestly)

2. That a blockchain is easier to set up than my proposed alternative.

Regarding 1: If the other parties just store the log, you just compare what the company provided with what the peers have stored. Then you see EXACTLY what has changed. I still don't understand what it is you claim a blockchain can do here that just having the peers store a copy of the logs cannot and how it is somehow less brittle.

Regarding 2: it can literally be as simple as serving the log from a webserver (with authentication if you only want the peers to be able to read it) and then have the peers scrape it periodically. Or send an email every night. Yes you need to provision infrastructure and integrate with your logging system. But that is the same for hosting a blockchain based system.

Having a bunch of answers to very poor questions is not the goal.

If you managed to parse out a good question in there of general interest that has not been answered yet, you can submit it yourself and provide your own answer. That way you are actually adding something valuable to the site.

I agree that it is really hard to contribute in a meaningful way though.

It's mp3 quality through an old tiny battery driven DAC...

No because the population is not even close to being uniformly distributed geographically.

So it is not really private to one business, but shared between a couple handfuls. The consensus of this group is then trusted.

In that case, to write a log entry I would have to publish the log into some mempool shared among the group as it is logged. At this point, each member can just store the log entry and then later verify it of asked. Again, it seems like the entire block chain part of this system is redundant and what is really providing utility is the idea of storing your logs with someone else as you create them so you cannot later claim something didn't happen.

But just to understand the idea of private blockchains better. Would this be some kind of hardcore "code is law" arrangement where each Company is competing on hash power with all the others to prevent them from rewriting the logs to their advantage (and in the best case being able to rewrite the log to their advantage).

Or is there some a priori agreement on what a reasonable amount of hash power is, that you just hope one company doesn't choose to outspent by a factor 100 the day they really need to rewrite the log?

I guess in that case it will be clear to everybody what has happened. But if you choose to act on this common sense version of events instead of the "truth of the blockchain consensus" you are, once again, undermining the entire idea of using a block chain.