kindkang2024's comments

> That wouldn’t comply with the Open Source Definition, which prohibits discrimination against any person, group, or field of endeavor.

If a DUKI-licensed project (similar to MIT, but requiring a business using it freely to “donate 1% of its net profits to a global fund”), how does this conflict with the Open Source Definition and prevent it from being called open source?

How to rig freedom?

It’s simple: you only need the wille to rig and the power to freely manifest that will. No matter how elegant the design of a democratic system, or how many procedural safeguards exist, nothing can stop you.

Sad but true—if there isn’t enough power to balance that wille.

May all who value freedom also have the power to defend it.

They are not to blame. Why should they care, when open source itself doesn't care about them? The benefits don't go to the public; they go to those who can use it to build a business.

Thanks for the kind reminder.

After reviewing the definition and interacting with an AI, I see that it does indeed exclude this type of use. However, I feel these definitions create unnecessary divisions and discrimination.

It seems unfair to projects with open source code under non-standard licenses, as they are prevented from using the term that aligns with how most people worldwide perceive it. The definition has also effectively made an enemy of money, which may be the root reason the author advocates for funding open source like public infrastructure.

Personally, I wish “Open Source” could simply reflect its literal meaning—the one that most people perceive: that the source is open for any purpose, provided the specified rules are met. In my view, as long as the rules set by the maintainers apply to everyone equally, they do not constitute discrimination. You just have to follow the rules of the game if you want to play.

How to rig elections?

Simple: you just need the wille to rig and the power to manifest your will freely. No fancy technology, counting systems, or statistical anomalies can stop you. Quantum cryptography is useless in such a case.

Sad but true—if there isn’t enough power to balance that wille.

Perhaps open source should update its license so that businesses profiting from it contribute a small portion of their earnings — say, 1% — to a global fund, whether allocated specifically to the open source maintainers and contributors or to the Decentralized Universal Kindness Income (DUKI /djuːki/) for all lives worldwide.

Still, most of these genius engineers likely don’t care much about such a small sum. They earn the honor and move on, while the charitable benefits flow to those who can monetize the software.

I was silenced by it, but I know the truth — AI isn’t to blame; the blame lies with those who misuse it.

I’m one of those who use it—mainly because it’s cheap, as others have mentioned. I wish Cursor offered a more generous limit so I wouldn’t need another paid subscription. But it won’t. So Trae comes in — fulfilling that need and sealing the deal. This is what we call competition: it brings more freedom and helps everyone get what they want. Kudos to the competition!

I'm not defending Trae’s telemetry — just pointing out the hard truth about why pricing works and why many people care less about privacy concerns (all because there are no better alternatives for them, considering the price.)

By the way, for those who care more about pricing($7.5/M) — here you go: https://www.trae.ai/. It’s still not as good as Cursor overall (just my personal opinion), but it’s quite capable now and is evolving fast — they even changed their logo in a very short time. Maybe someday it could be as competitive as Cursor — or even more so.

Thanks for sharing this. The method of encoding data through a looping chain of transactions between vanity addresses is particularly clever. Truly a innovative idea.

Hope to see more practical applications emerge. Please keep us updated should it unfold in the future.

> I have created nanotimestamps which basically allow you to embed a lot of data into blockchain itself with basically 0 gas fees.

How is this possible? Is it something that EVM-based chains can support? Curious to hear more.

> Regarding zk human proves, there are some zkmail

Zkmail doesn’t prove that you’re a unique human. Worldcoin does, but it requires trusting a single company with everyone’s iris data, which is quite dangerous, and completely undermines the goal of building a decentralized, trustless system.

The future I hope for is one where our own devices handle this entirely. Imagine a VR headset or future phone using its iris scanner, combined with our social data, to generate a single, secure cryptographic proof. This proof would verify our uniqueness in the world without ever leaking iris data or any other sensitive information.

> how exactly they would make the Internet better.

One key benefit is removing middlemen who may misuse aid.

Never underestimate human corruption—$100 million in aid might result in only $1 million truly helped those in need. This pattern is seen worldwide.

It's a good thing, sure, but not that great. Personally, I don't see the possibility of it solving many fundamental human problems.

We could still have war, extreme poverty, starvation, and massive conflicts between different groups... Those stuff probably will continue as today. It could even be exacerbated if the conflicting parties just gain more power…

Forever free, forever sovereign.

DID with ZK human proof on blockchain… Is this possible?

Open-source projects often function like a system of charity and honor. The honor goes to the contributors, while the charitable benefits flow to those who can use it to generate revenue. This model works well for both parties and indirectly benefits humanity.

However, I personally believe—perhaps naively—that the charity could be directed toward all humans in a more direct and obvious way. For example, when a project is released under a license, businesses that use it to make money would donate a small percentage of their profits—say, 1%—to a global fund: the "Decentralized Universal Kindness Income" (DUKI /dju:ki/). The business behind the main contributors would be exempt from this donation, or could choose a reduced percentage. This gives them an advantage when big companies use their project to compete against them (the reason why Redis changed its license).

The benefits are clear. Contributors would receive greater global recognition for their efforts—especially from those outside the tech industry—while businesses that donate would gain access to a wealth of open-source resources (if enough high-quality DUKI-licensed projects exist), also earning respect as a marketing strategy. They would likely gain a competitive advantage compared to those who do not.

I've called this concept the “DUKI License.” At its heart, it’s the MIT License with one simple addition: a profit-sharing requirement. Unfortunately, I don’t have the power to market it, and still unsure how it would be received by the very people who steer the open-source world—the project founders and core maintainers

Fitness is a relative thing, especially when competing for limited resources, like institutional investor money. Everyone has to be prepared before it’s too late.

By the way, standing as workers, I wish they wouldn't resort to layoffs as the usual route when facing challenges, but sadly, excel competence is required to make it happen, and not many have it.

> You need a sufficiently advanced, if incomplete, mental model of the sybject to know what you dont know.

I believe that through a few common prompts and careful reflection on the LLM's responses, this challenge can be easily overcome. Also, nobody truly knows what you're stuck on or thinking, unless you figure out the existence of unknown and seek it out. However, I do agree with your point that "a good teacher will help you get to the right questions," since a great teacher is an active agent; they can present the unknown parts first, actively forcing you to think about them.

- when people see some things as beautiful(best), other things become ugly(ordinary)....Being and non-being create each other. — Laozi, Tao Te Ching

Perhaps the emphasis on the greatness of an LLM gives the impression that it undermines the greatness of a great human teacher, which has already led to a few downvotes. I want to clarify that I never intended to undermine that. I have encountered a few great teachers in my life, whether during my school years or those teaching in the form of MOOCs. A great teacher excels at activating the students' wille to seek the unknown and teaching more than just knowledge. Also, the LLM relies heavily on these very people to create the useful materials it trains on.

Metaphorically speaking, the LLM is learning from almost all great teachers to become a great 'teacher' itself. In that sense, I find no problem saying "LLM could be the teacher, one of the best already."

> why do all these business leaders all do the same

Simple. These companies need enough 'fitness' in order to survive and thrive. No one has the power to fight against the Nature’s Wille—survival of the fittest. They have to obey, especially when faced with the ruthless, life-and-death competition of the commercial world.

P.S. Hoping this comment doesn’t get downvoted too much and end up dead, not surviving.

I've always found his Wille fascinating, ever since college. Perhaps his Wille has found a way into my mind, competing with all the others and survived. (Wille as Recycled Thoughts)

However, I diverge from his pessimistic view: that the Wille is a blind impulse condemning life to a tragedy. I believe all wills originate from love—whether for the ego or for the world (other egos). This doesn't create a cycle of suffering, but could be a drive towards peace and happiness. In that sense, I feel that Wille has mutated and evolved a bit.

P.S. If you're interested in Schopenhauer, check out this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-djIdl8WO4 SCHOPENHAUER Explained: The World as Will and Representation (ALL PARTS) by Weltgeist—he really did a great job of representing that Wille.

Really nice. My wife loves it, Also I.

> LLMs dont have a deep enough understanding of theory of mind to see how someone is stuck and help them get unstuck.

Many teachers cannot do that either.

I find ChatGPT and the Gemini model quite good at problems whose solutions are already known. We just need the Wille—the will—to ask it.