1. SSD upgrade + backup scripting for TRB machine: 3h.
2. Verify mod6’s TRB Keccak tree: 1h.
3. Update and test TRB patches (rawtx, Gales build): 6h.
4. Continue researching and apply for temporary local health insurance: 4h.
5. Continue v.sh and/or vtools study: 2h.
6. Make a list of applications for genesis.
7. Keep in touch with remote friends and family.
8. Assist Robinson as necessary.
9. Next week’s review by Friday.
Time permitting
10. Revisit the Gales Linux build in light of questions that arose.
Aren’t you going to publish those router notes if you updated them anyway?
Comment by Diana Coman — April 6, 2020 @ 8:10 am
I wanted to confer with Robinson regarding the benefits of publishing vs. keeping it for customers, as it is a part of the service we’re offering. I’m leaning toward publishing, though I don’t think we have a very clear approach to deciding such things. Any suggestions here, as I know your own business involves a mix of public and private knowledge?
Comment by Jacob Welsh — April 7, 2020 @ 9:18 pm
[…] skipped some items from my plan and added some others. The status in detail: 1. SSD upgrade + backup scripting for TRB machine: […]
Pingback by JFW review, week of 6 Apr 2020 « Young Hands Club — April 14, 2020 @ 6:42 am
http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-04-08#1023885 :
diana_coman: http://younghands.club/2020/04/06/jfw-plan-week-of-6-apr-2020/#comment-625 – jfw, that’s at least an interesting question; as usual though, I’d say the evaluation starts not from imagined benefits but from very real and concrete costs (of keeping it private); for one thing, if I understand correctly that you do make that available to your clients, then how exactly are you going to keep it private ?
diana_coman: what, you make them sign papers and then chase the leak or what?
diana_coman: dorion: the above is supposedly of equal interest to you too.
jfw: diana_coman: I don’t fancy pushing NDAs and chasing leaks, no.
trinque: ^ great way to buy your lawyer a boat
jfw: seems like the kind of game that you have to be microsoft to play
trinque: even them, the windows source code has leaked how many times
diana_coman: jfw: I’d have thought it obvious too, but the question didn’t seem to care about it, lolz.
jfw: trinque: sure, I imagine the boat floats so long as you can bail faster than the leaks.
diana_coman still read that “so long as you can boil faster than the leeks”
jfw: diana_coman: what’s less obvious to me is whether there’s a middle ground between truly secret and actively published by us, that could work at some scale. Because there’s value in ready access, which I figure is part of why a central dealer of a product can make a spread even if his counterparts could otherwise trade privately
jfw: perhaps a closer analogy, sometimes people still buy music even if they can torrent it free, because there’s more certainty / consistency
jfw: one obvious cost of keeping private though is lack of feedback from people here (even if we don’t go to the ‘open source’ notion of ‘many eyeballs’ materializing from the ether)
diana_coman: jfw: more to the point the question is what are you selling there exactly? because if you imagine that you are selling the recipe aka the text, the “intellectual property” or similar, then a. you don’t have anything worth selling b. you’ll play that leeks-for-the-lawyer game.
jfw: we’re selling training, so focus on the active part of that rather than some imagined income from textbook royalties essentially?
diana_coman: jfw: that’s pretty much how it looks to me, yes.
diana_coman: jfw: sure, you can also sell whatever printed copies/nicely set/certified-by-jwrd copies I suppose, not like it’s forbidden or not possible (ie re your buying music even if available otherwise for free) but again, there as with the training, you are selling that additional part & guarantee, not the “recipe”
jfw: diana_coman: alright thanks, would be nice to avoid “semi-private document” dances if indeed there’s no benefit. I’ll let it simmer and see if further objections come to mind.
diana_coman: jfw: lol, you are still after the benefits, ok.
jfw: d’oh.
diana_coman: jfw: I don’t know how well you get/are aware of eulora&smg otherwise but in any case, if you want to look at it for this sort of question, what you’d need to look at is ~what’s the private part, what are the reasons given for keeping it private and how narrowly/widely is it cut out of the rest otherwise
diana_coman: but other than that, ~any “must-be-kept-private” is a significant cost the way I see it and one that needs to be *justified* well to consider taking it on; sure, maybe that’s just me, can be.
jfw: my picture of eulora is that the server internals are kept private because part of the game is exploring to learn what’s in the environment and how it responds
diana_coman: quite, yes.
jfw: where was it MP wrote that the thing with spam isn’t that it pays, but that people imagine it pays because they see others doing it, and so goes the feedback loop. possibly why I imagine that quasi-secrecy can pay.
diana_coman: jfw: tbh I’d say the benefit is first of all that you can point to it and clearly say “here it is, first time, made by JWRD”; which goes away the moment someone else publishes the paper they got from you, you know?
jfw: that’s a point.
diana_coman: other than that sure, I can see the usual game with idiots going “oh, but it’s public info”; in which case, sure let them see what they can do with the “public info” on their own, that sort of “clients” are going to keep being more trouble than it’s worth it as far as I’m concerned; then again, if you want those…
diana_coman: dorion: what’s your view on this secret documentation anyway? (see the thread above)
Comment by Jacob Welsh — April 15, 2020 @ 7:30 pm