A language for the description of cryptographic algorithms.
Examples:
Functional programming language for the JVM with row types, algebraic effects, and embedded Datalog.
JVM back end for Idris 2.
A one-binary initramfs.
A framework for secure booting, building on top of whatever secure booting functionality the firmware provides and then taking over from there.
Using Linux as firmware and as a boot loader.
We need to be flexible and build our systems in such a way that we can switch out cryptographic algorithms as new attacks come along.
What worked in the past does not necessarily work today. Evolving defensive measures and notions of what “unthinkable” actions are force changes in strategy.
Converts a pattern description in English into a regular expression with the help of artificial intelligence.
A dependently-typed programming language and interactive theorem prover with an extrinsic type system based on the untyped lambda calculus.
Air conditioning works, but is not sustainable. The paper discusses alternatives.
Under most circumstances, anyway.
Chris Auld’s critique of Steve Keen.
Economic modeling software by Steve Keen, the author of Debunking Economics.
A book about the great scientific discoveries of the 20th century. What makes this book special is that works with the actual original scientific papers.
An ML-family, statically typed, functional programming language for data-parallel computations. Targets CUDA, OpenCL, and CPUs.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics that—as far as I understand—is an extension of the Copenhagen interpretation, with the main difference being that it rejects the notion of a single physical reality that is independent of the observer. Each observer, it seems to go, experiences its own Everett branch. This resolves the measurement problem.
The main difference between it and Many Worlds seems to be that Everett branches are indexed by observers rather than possibilities. In other words, observers do not split. From this it seems to me that it follows that Everett branches cannot diverge under Relational Quantum Mechanics; as soon as two observers interact with each other, their realities must synchronize, which puts constraints on the set of possible histories.
To put it in terms of Schrödinger’s Cat: If the cat survives according to its own experience, then the physicist who opens its box must find it alive. This is not true under Many Worlds, where there will be copies of the physicist who find it alive and those who find it dead.
Personally speaking, as far as Copenhagen-based interpretations go, this one seems at least not quite so insane.
I still find Many Worlds (plus decoherence) more intuitive, though.
A group of physicists, founded in 1975, that primarily discussed quantum mysticism but was apparently still pretty influential.