6 files changed, 394 insertions, 7 deletions
diff --git a/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech b/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech
index 59580dd..f799cc3 100644
--- a/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech
+++ b/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech
@@ -5,18 +5,18 @@ a step forward into utilizing the said network in a blockchain project that its
 initial claim was to furtherly bring the network to people to counter censorship
 that is imposed by governments and ISPs.
 
-Let me critisize, right away, that the development of said blockchain project
-was too slow, incompatible and having weird inconcistences on its inner tools.
+Let me criticize, right away, that the development of said blockchain project
+was too slow, incompatible and having weird inconsistencies on its inner tools.
 
 In a course of 5 years, the btc-suite, a go lang source code was updated to meet
 the symbols (ticker if you may) of said project, change the top amount of coins
 that could ever existed in it, change the algorithm for mining the SHA256 space
-to mining for announcing bandwidth availablily.
+to mining for announcing bandwidth availability.
 
 There were several, in my opinion, useless wallet implementations, which also
 brought a year-lasting confusion to the project. Particularly, segwit wallets,
 mining wallets and a form of lightweight wallets. To cast some light into the
-abovementioned incompatibility, you couldn't mine coins on a "lightweight" one.
+above mentioned incompatibility, you couldn't mine coins on a "lightweight" one.
 
 To further confusion, documentation was never in sync with what is going on and
 what a new comer would need to learn about the project in order to participate.
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ paragraph is huge. But the most laughable part, is that after you send your keys
 to them, "you can still use them" as they mentioned. Did I mention that the tool
 was closed source? Yes! And the answer of the developer was "because". Note that
 private keys being sent to them is not confirmed and it is an assumption solely
-based on the fact that the developer repeatdly denied access to the source code.
+based on the fact that the developer repeatedly denied access to the source code.
 
 About the selective airdrop, it was proven by several members of the community
 that their keys weren't redeemable on the new token. To add more into that, keys
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ To get back to the 3 investors, that it seems that they did launch a couple of
 rug-pull projects in the past, it is all about money. They seem to understand
 very well what money can buy and how one can appear as a good samaritan to help
 an interesting project while the main goal is to see return on their
-investements. They, as well as the main developer, were and still are thirsty
+investments. They, as well as the main developer, were and still are thirsty
 for financial gains and control. Not only they were trying to take control of a
 decentralized blockchain project but when they saw that this couldn't happen,
 they tried every possible scenario that a company would do in order to maintain
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ the rules, they are the ones that broke them continuously.
 
 In the end, the whole effort on this article is to cause an alert in other
 communities that are also under a same type of structure, authoritarian-types.
-The project I am refering to, will remain unnamed for the time being and
+The project I am referring to, will remain unnamed for the time being and
 possibly it will be revealed when the time is right. I wouldn't like to give
 them attention, since the only thing that matters to them is liquidity. And it's
 true, later from the announcement, their channels only accept airdrop claim
diff --git a/news/1726334198-knowing_a_person_online b/news/1726334198-knowing_a_person_online
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..518ee38
--- /dev/null
+++ b/news/1726334198-knowing_a_person_online
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Knowing a person online for years, getting vibes of honesty, participating in
+interesting projects, gets involved with blockchain development, starts their
+own blockchain, but maintains a mindset of ownership.
+
+Furthermore, colors of authoritarian noise came along the way as well, slowly
+evolving from a "I know better" perspective, not giving a dime about others'
+feelings.
+
+This seems to be understood as determination by that person. So it went on for
+years, hidden behind the facade of a good/noble person.
+
+The outcomes of looking at their work though, are not hidden that much. The said
+determination made the first peer to peer network to be tainted by such mindset
+that the architecture of it is, since 2018, an inequality network. To add more
+in that, the work was never audited as it should. Cryptographic algorithms
+accompanying the software were written from scratch, breaching in silence the
+trust of the user-base.
+
+But for all the above, even if anyone spoke up about those misconceptions and
+detouring from the original idea, they did not reach my ears or eyes.
+During the past month, the said person stroke once more, this time, even more
+methodically and aware of what he was about to do. Taking back previous claims
+about the direction of the project which in his words, was community driven.
+
+A famous quote applies here for the fellow person: "Dictators free their selves,
+but they enslave the people". In such situation though, with humanity working
+collectively towards freedom and equality, the communities' backlash was and
+still is tremendous. A thing that in no way was expected by the actor.
+
+As every dictator, he opposed his own people, trying to silence them and forced
+them to exile. Before getting in my hands proofs on chain and commit histories,
+trying to convince he is most likely on the wrong, I met up a new character, a
+relentless one that also moved quickly to oppose me as well. Even in such
+position that I was quickly put in exile as well. I did my best to remind the
+person about values and such, but apparently, when liquidity becomes the new
+belief system, nothing really matters.
+
+This whole situation left me angered. Not anger towards the person but towards
+me, getting uncomfortable with my own decisions to trust not the person, but
+their code. A code that the person sees as his legacy, a classic dictator's
+mindset, but even with my little experience I can understand that it is
+effectively dangerous to run. A code base that for more than 10 years is
+depending on an unstable release of a library which was receiving updates
+tactically and had many stable releases since then.
+
+That would be a more honest take on his partners presentation, particularly on
+the session "Meet CJD". The ID of this post will be included as a reference, as
+well with a date of posting, in my personal not decentralized blog feed that you
+can find at https://git.kaotisk-hund.com/01-NEWS/.git/tree/news shortly after
+this is posted here, in pkteerium.xyz, operated by the said person.
+
+Thanks for reading and be always alarmed,
+Kaotisk Hund
+
+
+PS: I should clarify that when referring to "CJD", I mean "Cartman James
+DeLisle". Any similarities with real people is unintentional and the whole post
+is a work of fiction dealing with philosophical questions and values.
+
+The above could be found at (unless I got banned from the site):
+- https://pkteerium.xyz/@kaotisk/posts/Am07AS7WJjQ15X7L0q
+
+2024.09.27 - Update: I left pkteerium cause I chose to do so. I prefer to be on
+my own than to depend on anyone's will, even more if it is the fictional person
+I mentioned above.
diff --git a/news/1729396343-radio_station_emulator b/news/1729396343-radio_station_emulator
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ce128dd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/news/1729396343-radio_station_emulator
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+Radio Station Emulator
+======================
+
+First of all, since you are reading this at most probably the web/internet, let
+me clarify that the "radio station" part is referring to a webradio station, a
+station that resembles the classic "radio" that plays on the FM/AM and other
+bands which instead of transmitting signal to the airwaves, it actually streams
+data over the internet.
+
+Secondly, the "emulator" part means that the particular radio station we are
+going to talk about it has mainly pre-recorded shows to play on its program.
+Live programs are also possible in this emulator by extending the core idea but
+to keep it simple and trully emulator we will only consider the pre-recorded
+shows, for ease and to not create a hybrid emulator, in the sense that sometimes
+is an emulator, some other times is not, cause it actually plays live.
+
+The main goal is to eliminate the streaming of data in its synchronous form and
+make it asynchronous. One of the main problems moving from streaming the data
+the audience is supposed to hear is that with no synchronous streaming, we would
+be unable to synchronize the audience in the same way radio stations are doing
+this.
+
+At the current time this is getting written, the link to the website 
+https://radio.arching-kaos.com will land you to the implementated idea we are
+here to talk about.
+
+While being analytical to this point, the solution to the problem won't be of
+the same degree of analysis. For this, a thesis paper is being developed but I
+am eager to share the news about it and talk about how the emulator works.
+
+Assume the pre-recorded shows and that these shows are played on after another
+on a radio station. If new content is not added, the list of these shows is
+repeated from the beggining.
+
+To make the asynchronous part, we need to have each show ready to be transfered
+to the audience. For convenience and for further expanding of the project, we
+would be having some metadata files, describing somethings about each show and,
+also, point the audience to the actual show. These metadata files, would need to
+let the audience about some key elements for later use. The most important parts
+are:
+1. date of publishing,
+2. duration,
+3. pointer to the show,
+4. the format of data that the show is stored in.
+The third and fourth parts are for the audience to be able to play the shows.
+The first and second ones, we will need them later for calculations.
+
+Now, think that these metadata files are referenced from another file that holds
+the list:
+of them, with to more elements:
+1. date and time of first appearance of this list and
+2. total duration of the list.
+
+To make the asynchronous, synchronous, we will need to calculate how much time
+has passed since the playlist started playing for the first time. Subtracting
+these two timestamps, we would get the number of seconds that have passed
+since.
+
+Timestamp(now) - Timestamp(playlist) = SecondsPassed
+
+Dividing the SecondsPassed with the total duration of the list we would now the
+times the list was fully played (the integer part of the outcome) and a ratio
+of how many seconds have passed since the latest start from the beggining of the
+list (the decimal part).
+
+SecondsPassed / TotalDuration = TimesFullyPlayed + K
+
+where TimesFullyPlayed is an integer/natural number
+
+K = SecondsPassedSinceLastStart / TotalDuration where 0<=K<1 which also means
+that SecondsPassedSinceLastStart > TotalDuration
+
+Finding the TimesFullyPlayed + K part would be easily calculated if for the
+ratio SecondsPassed/TotalDuration we would keep the integer part of the outcome
+and subtract it from the actual ratio. This would leave us with K which to
+convert back to seconds, we would multiply it by the TotalDuration which would
+be the amount of seconds passed since the last repeatition of the list.
+
+Knowing this amount of seconds, we would manage, knowing the durations of each
+show, to calculate which show is already played, which is not and which is the
+one that the audience is supposed to hear and the moment of tuning in.
+
+This part could be achieved by looking for each show in the list, effectively
+iterating until the point that the SecondsPassedSinceLastStart is greater than
+the summary of the durations, that we have already iterated in our process.
+When this condition is met, we get the current iterated show and load it.
+
+Finally, we sync on that show, by subtracting the summary of the previous shows'
+durations from the SecondsPassedSinceLastStart and we start playing the current
+show starting at the amount of seconds we just calculated.
+
+And we are back in synchronicity!
+
diff --git a/news/1759407714-why_you_might_need_ai_less_than_you_think b/news/1759407714-why_you_might_need_ai_less_than_you_think
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6276446
--- /dev/null
+++ b/news/1759407714-why_you_might_need_ai_less_than_you_think
@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+Why you might need AI less than you think
+=========================================
+LLMs (aka AI) are models that have been trained to do human-like conversation,
+mimicking effectively (or not) the lingual parts of the human brain, the parts
+that are responsible for making sentences, paragraphs and expression in native
+(human) languages.
+
+Many are using it for coding. I strongly believe that this is a wrong usage for
+the tool. As it is trained for writing and reading text, the job of "writing
+code" is inherently different by nature.
+
+When we want to code some project from an idea or from reading some objectives,
+we go in a process where we need to understand the objectives and change them in
+a way that computers understand by writing a code base on some programming
+language. The programming languages though are not governed by the same rules
+and logic of the human-native ones. Things in human language might not make any
+sense for computers.
+
+There is a wrong assumption that since we are telling a computer to do it, it
+will be natural for them to do the task easier. That's a common internal
+misconception. As already said, this programs/models are trained to mimic human
+language, not computer languages. They don't operate as when we say to someone
+"how to say 'my name is ...' in your mother language". They don't have one.
+
+What an LLM will do (in short) is read your text and try to express your text
+as code. The outcome is more close to human text than real programming
+algorithms or computer native programming language utilization. In other words,
+it's good until it's not. This can be witnessed far more easily when one is
+prooompting for lower level computer languages. It can also be seen many times
+in high level ones.
+
+For example, providing a function written with bad naming conventions (both
+function name and variables) in a type-safe computer language like golang,
+including some comment about its usage and asking to rename the function and the
+variable names only, might result on having a reply that changes also the types
+of the variables, not renaming everything or just hallucinate from a small and
+concrete prompt. For this example, I had to ask again (around 5-6 times) until
+it made it right. That's what I call "losing time with garbage tools".
+
+I have countless personal examples of using LLMs in ways which resulted me to
+waste more time than if I did it by myself. I have lots of examples read from
+articles that conclude to the same time wasting and go in extend analyzing
+hallucinations or even bug discovery for bugs that aren't there or they are
+there but only a small amount of percentage are figuring them out.
+
+Note that the claim here is not that "I am better than AI" or an inferiority
+complex. For short, anyone with intuition is better than AI and intuition is
+installed by default in every human, so there's that: we are all better than AI.
+
+The claim is the following: in order to get things going, people are choosing
+convinience over factors that don't really understand. This creates a kind of
+debt, known as knowledge debt. If you are doing it for your own sake and nobody
+else will ever see it, then yes, you could go nuts on copy-pasting. And to be
+real about it, I did a lot of copy-pasting in my early years (pre-LLM era). It's
+not inherently bad. But there are more steps on this: you copy-paste, you try,
+it might not work as intented, you edit it, retry, edit again, done.
+
+On collaborative projects though, this is very different. One might want to just
+complete a project, rushing to a final solution without any critisism or thought
+on what it should be or should not be there. No understanding of architecture,
+no will to change anything on the code if it's working, leaving codebases in a
+huge mess, really badly written, with lots of repetition and not at all simple.
+
+To me, this means that for the sake of not putting the work, you put almost the
+same amount of work, get into knowledge debt, pass it on to your colleagues,
+provide badly written code and get the credits for being "fast". Before going on
+about what comes with this approach, let's quickly discredit the "fastness".
+They are not "fast". "Vibe-coding" is totally unrelated to coding and more
+related to "testing". This approach has severe drawbacks which one might think
+they will never show up but they are just waiting around the corner.
+
+People that are about to work with such "testers", while trying to grasp the
+concepts of good practices, reading such code might end up having a really bad
+time while doing so. If the architecture of the whole project is just bad, this
+alone adds up time. Repetition requires deduplication which takes time. People
+that don't want to put the time will lose interest. People that don't want to
+refactor badly written code will lose interest. And that's problematic.
+
+Your future (or current) manager might not even know how to read code. Having a
+manager used to quick project deliverance is not something really bad. But will
+turn badly when for smaller features you will need more time than the first code
+base was written on. This will be witnessed by managers.
+
+Quits, firings, bad reputation, bad relations: hostile work environment for
+short. Will LLMs help when one reaches this level? I don't think so. Learn your
+craft! You can do it!
+
+There are tools (yeah, AI ones) that specialize on coding, but they tend to come
+with costs or limitations. If these tools are the only devs you know available
+for hiring, what can I say, go nuts. But don't forget(!!!!): you pay someone
+else now, which is bad. You probably work a 9-5 to make a living. The company
+you work at is not yours. You don't do hiring, your manager does. Ask them to
+hire people and set the standards. The money you are making is for you to keep,
+not to buy stuff for a company you don't own. Hello!!!
+
+We are still using software written in the 1970's. From back then until pre-LLM
+era software is written completely by humans. That's more than 50 years. The
+hype promoting AI is creating a mindfield crisis to some that lack of
+understanding can enhance its effects. The manager we mentioned before, might
+have no idea how to write/read code. Seeing LLMs spitting all this output looks
+nice to them, but it's not realistic. To them, it looks productive, to devs
+sooner or later will be counter-productive.
+
+So why you might need LLMs less than you probably think? Because you possibly
+started recently to code and the learning curve is a learning curve and it's
+natural to get overwhelmed, bored, lazy or just want to see some results. Learn
+your tools instead, your editor, the compiler you are using, get in depth or at
+least reach a level of understanding. Write code that you know why you wrote it.
+That's "owning the code".
+
+This article was inspired after a lot of discussions, personal experiences and
+articles. Unfortunately, I won't be referencing the articles. Truly, though, it
+is my intention to raise awareness about my humble opinion which I feel that
+while it's seemingly unpopular, it might express statements that others might
+also agree. The point, however, is mostly for people that might haven't thought
+about this before and possibly dealt with the issues mentioned. A lot of these
+can be reasons for causing frustration, and when this emotion comes up, people
+tend to not explain the reasons and just leave, stop talking, break
+collaborations or other ways of avoiding confrontation.
+
+While the following could be a heads up I feel that it matches much better for
+closing thoughts and clarity. I personally stand against this LLM/AI hype. I
+find it stupid, extorting and very disturbing. I don't like big corporations
+either. My understanding is that these organizations are trying to monopolize
+once again various sectors of human-driven workforce so they can gain more for
+theirselves. I find it plain stupid to waste time to use those tools and in the
+process of doing so, train them to do it better. Therefore I personally
+discourage anyone from using them. If you do decide to use them, my advice is
+to make one simple prompt at the time and never engage with them after that.
+Don't train your competitors for free. You are being used. Any governmental
+regulations leave me indifferent and utopias that it will transform society in
+a way that would be beneficial for everyone are lacking understanding of how
+governments and capitalism works.
+
+Finally, as I really dislike the "conclusion" part on every article I am reading
+on the internet, you are encouraged to draw your own for yourself. If you used
+some LLM to summarize this article, I assume that you can't gain anything from
+this article because reading it, requires time and work which you seem to not be
+willing to put on anything. Value comes from work you put on stuff, if you don't
+they are just cheaper but this doesn't guarantee any type of quality. Maybe
+harsh, but I honestly can't care more.
+
+If you really read it as it is, I then thank you for your time and effort. I
+hope you will find ways to include it in your thinking and internal processes.
+In the case you disagree with what I wrote, firstly we might have different
+purposes but secondly, I hope it adds up to your omni-opinion development.
+
+This took long enough to write. I won't make a series of articles about this as
+engagement with current hypes is not my lifestyle, so don't expect follow ups.
+
+Again, thank you for your time,
+kaotisk
+
diff --git a/news/1765659278-ranting_about_medium b/news/1765659278-ranting_about_medium
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6a63298
--- /dev/null
+++ b/news/1765659278-ranting_about_medium
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Ranting about medium
+====================
+
+Well, first of all, let's talk about what medium means to me. It's a size of
+clothing which is just about my size but it feels totally uncomfortable when
+wearing it.
+
+Secondly, it also means the "in-between" thing, the medium which helps two or
+more things communicate. The "via" thing that enables something to happen. For
+example, a medium can be a cable between two devices, but it can also be a more
+broad mediator between other things.
+
+Another thing that medium can mean is the "average", going back to clothing, it
+could be large or small but it's something in-between those too.
+
+Then, there is this annoying website... a place where people can blog-post and,
+obviously, publish texts of various subjects. Unfortunately, for this case,
+medium stand for mediocracy. For sure, I haven't read them all and even more
+surely, neither I can or want to. Be aware this is a rant, me complaining about
+the unconveniences I find about this site, the feel and let me heads-up you
+first with the following: I will be vaguely over-generalizing. If you are an
+author there and feel like being affected or mistreated, assume that I haven't
+read something of yours. But even if I had read something of yours and still
+wanted to apply my critique on you, this should not be affecting you. It's an
+opinion upon an opinion. You can choose if it matters to you or not.
+
+With the disclaimer out of the way, let's start!!!
+
+F#$%!$ FLASHBANG! No dark mode, just "pure" whiteness in front of your face as
+well as the typical high pitch tone after the explosion. Seriously, worse thing
+ever.
+
+After the initial buzz and your eyes adjust to the brightness, yet another
+surprise: a flat big "modal" that covers everything and asks for subscription.
+Let me tell you something medium.com: I just visited this page, coming from a
+search engine result. How on Earth would I ever be willing to subscribe to
+someone's blog if I didn't even have the opportunity to read a couple of lines?!
+Are you out of your mind? [point and click the "x" button]
+
+And now to the average post... scrolling, looking here and there to catch
+keywords. Oh, some code snippets, looks like it is what I want. Well, not so
+quick. Something seems odd, the text before the snippet confirms: this is yet
+another post describing a subcategory of a problem that someone used at some
+point. I mean, good for them, but how did I end up there?! [goes back at search
+results]
+
+Looking for other links, [clicks a couple more], yet no luck. Reaches another
+medium post, same stuff all over again: flashbang, point and click,
+uncomprehensive read. After sometime, you get the right link!!! Hooray!
+
+You exceeded the amount of articles for today.
+
+TLDR: As far as I understand, medium.com is not for me, I don't like it, it's
+annoying, people that write in there inherit the annoyances of it, people that
+read it, I wonder what they find about it useful.
+
+I mean, it looks like a blogging platform, as substitude for linkedin posts.
+Same corporate mindset, less corporal expression. And no, I don't read linkedin
+posts. The fact that some people want you to acknowledge they are in a corporal
+bubble is the most stupid thing ever.
+
+Yeah, that's it. I have the need to express myself, but I also have the need to
+not extensively waste my time on such matters.
+
+See ya.
diff --git a/news/1765881586-conclusion b/news/1765881586-conclusion
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6a95f25
--- /dev/null
+++ b/news/1765881586-conclusion
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+Conclusion
+==========
+
+Please please please, just stop writing this freaking header just before your
+last paragraph in a post. It's annoying. Internet has so much text hidden in
+between the lines, but somehow, "Conclusion" header needs to be seen!
+
+Even jokes have a "conclusion" part, the last part of the joke. Should we be
+saying that we are getting to the conclusion part of the joke?
+
+What's wrong and people are explicitly mentioning this nowadays?!