> I see no reason transhumanism is any less of a religion than humanism.
TBH I agree. Religious exemptions at large only exist for the big name religions but the arguments pushed often make claims about it being a moral/ethical precedent and its just not true. I think its a matter of PR and politics if you're able to get an exemption kind of same game as a lot of things.
The emotion / cognition distinction is somewhat poor and often breaks down, because you can't really have one without the other (different mental states just involve differing degrees of both, phenomenologically). They aren't really causally separable, but are only really phenemonologically separable (cognition and emotion have different feels / textures, but almost always co-occur).
Most importantly, you rarely have "cognition-free" emotional states, because emotions always involve some mental model or representation of the self / world / self and world, i.e. they involve a cognitive state. Only in very extreme cases (drugs, perhaps some cases of persistent depression, etc) might you be able to have emotions that are largely uncorrelated with any kind of particular cognition.
Likewise, the same is almost certainly true for cognitive states, in that we tend to think about / model things because we need to evaluate those things. Evaluation too seems to rely heavily on emotional processes, in that damage to emotional processing tends to make rational / logical decision-making severely impaired (e.g. Damasio's work in the 90s, or https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2396787/). Regardless, you can't remove evaluation / valuation from most thinking, and that is fundamentally linked to emotion.
Doesn't mean you couldn't potentially build a machine / thing that detects mental states, mind you. But it likely won't be very useful if it is just using simple folk-psychological terminology and concepts (or using such concepts will likely not result in much insights into the machine outputs).
So I was pretty sure I'd looked into some of this before.
I auto-genned an html page really quickly based on my notes and some searching; here's a link to what I managed to pull together. You're asking a pretty specific question, so ymmv, but it might be of use?
You could try a search over network switching research, e.g. some consider ADHD a problem with switching between (or concurrent activation of) default mode network and task-focused network. Not sure how many other networks have been identified.
IMO the README is not Claudish, this project is in an area that is more "computer science" than "coding" and there is simply a high bar on whats needed for prior knowledge. I think you could say ELI5 "Explain Like I'm 5" and it probably is possible to do so, but I don't think its correct to say "claudish".
I am a paying chatgpt and codex user and I am logged in on multiple devices and suddenly https://chatgpt.com/ has started returning a raw 404 status page with no HTML for me in the browsers on all devices. When I open an incognito tab the website loads fine with no user logged in. Codex in VS code also has issues now:
YES! I swear I thought something malicious was happening, especially because Claude went down at the same time. https://status.openai.com was totally unhelpful, making me more suspicious.
This is really unfortunate. When cloudflare dropped IPFS you could say this next step was sort of already on the way. I may be biased but I think when IPFS decided to put so much time into "IPNS" in order to support non-static webapps years ago what they came up with did not fit the need. And without webapps on IPFS things were going nowhere.
A year or so ago I wrote IPFS-boot which allows serving webapps on IPFS while providing also an update path and without breaking content hashing:
But now if you want to serve a secure webapp and not use IPFS IMO the only option you have is to tell users to install Tailscale and to host the webapp themselves and then to install Tailscale on all devices.
I agree that IPNS has always seemed a bit naff; but alternatives naming systems can be used too (if your system's name resolver can understand them); e.g. this uses pkarr addresses for IPFS content: http://www.chriswarbo.net/blog/2026-05-08-pkdnslink.html
Regarding an "update path", GNS has support for that built-in; though I've not been able to try it myself, since I can't get GNUNet to bootstrap :-(
I always thought that they should have used ENS instead of whatever coin they ended up making. GNS is cool but IIRC (years ago) it had no incentive mechanism which is I think where a lot of these solutions fall down. Even imaginary "ratio points" that p2p file sharing sites have being using for years work better than "donate your resources out of the goodness of your heart".
Half baked comment but I feel like many of these efforts are too purist. Sure they need to think more carefully about incentives from a systemic angle but also why not accept a hybrid design that doesn't depend on those in the first place? For example plenty of people operate their own nameservers for their own websites to use, or spin up a VPS to support [thing] they make use of. So at a minimum I'm sure webring-style infra where you cover for your friends and they cover for you would work quite well.
For a real world example of a hybrid approach that works see bittorrent where torrents can optionally contain urls that point to alternate download sources in order to speed up the initial seeding phase.
My personal opinion is that any notion of "incentive mechanisms" for IPFS is bullshit: whether Filecoin, or otherwise.
There is already a perfectly good incentive mechanism: if someone wants to host some data, they can; and if nobody wants to host it, it doesn't get hosted.
That's worked perfectly well for HTTP, without any shitcoin needed. The advantage of IPFS is that its URLs resolve to anybody who cares enough to host that data; so links will only 404 when nobody cares (unlike HTTP, which relies on a single point of failure).
I see this very similar to IPv4 and IPv6, and adoption. Non content addressable URL addressing simply is "good enough" for most use cases, and bittorrent is "good enough" for serving content durably and somewhat in a content addressable manner (file hashes, magnet torrents, immutable torrents). Do we need IPFS URLs? It doesn't appear so, it seems like a solution seeking a problem. IPFS gateways will always be a target for abuse and copyright claims as well.
I think something like IPFS is definitely needed. There is nothing stopping you from distributing a webapp on bittorrent but you'll also need to add a README for instructions on how to run the webapp on localhost so a browser can render it. So thats not something that any non-technical user wants to do.
Can you share potential webapp use cases that would rely on IPFS or using IPFS for referencing resources would be an improvement? Perhaps my mental has gaps on this topic, and my thoughts and assertions could be incorrect.
The arguments for "reproducible builds" are strong and so think reproducible builds but for something that can be loaded in the browser. Browser is a big deal because its a sandbox also. For example Signal could be a webapp if we had content addressable hashing and it would be sandboxed.
Arguably that's a browser shortcoming that applies equally to IPFS (as well as all the other "alternative" internet protocols). (But yes I realize IPFS is a much better fit for the purpose when you dig into the details.)
I don't understand. Billions of non-technical users are loading URLs like `https://cdn.foo/?guid=deadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeef` all the time. Why would they care if those URLs became `ipfs://deadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeef` instead?
Pronounceable names can point to a content address, the same way they can point to an IP address. For example, https://dnslink.dev points a DNS name to a content address; git refs point to git objects; etc.
This is irrelevant. The point I'm responding to is this:
>I think something like IPFS is definitely needed. There is nothing stopping you from distributing a webapp on bittorrent but you'll also need to add a README for instructions on how to run the webapp on localhost so a browser can render it. So thats not something that any non-technical user wants to do.
This quoted comment assumes there's a web app that is sufficiently complex as to require a readme to run it, but that's too complex for normal people.
But somehow, a link that looks like `ipfs://12340-9q5ui1j2;lk3rjq;ladksfj` won't scare those same people off?
My go to example: IPFS is Plan9 to bittorrent's UNIX. Some achingly beautiful design, willingness to completely disregard existing messy conventions(for example: The ipfs unified url format) and, like you said, still not enough better for people to want to change.
Oh and sorry I missed your comment on "Subresource Integrity".
The deal here is Subresource Integrity will only help you if the index.html is considered trusted/authoritative. So you still need a way to get index.html to users and users need a way to say "is this the true index.html"
I think parent is talking strictly about P2P, so you'll need (typically) something to help you tunnel between clients, as there are NATs and all sorts of things between two typical consumer computer at two different homes.
TBH I agree. Religious exemptions at large only exist for the big name religions but the arguments pushed often make claims about it being a moral/ethical precedent and its just not true. I think its a matter of PR and politics if you're able to get an exemption kind of same game as a lot of things.
reply