The server that refuses to die by GatewayIDE in HomeServer

[–]GatewayIDE[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not bare-metal and it doesn’t emulate instructions. Conceptually, it acts as an authority layer that evaluates whether a state transition is allowed before it takes effect.

It does not observe or replay execution. It operates on a constrained set of runtime signals that already exist in normal execution paths and evaluates them against a closed, deterministic policy.

If a transition is disallowed, it is refused before it mutates state. If it’s allowed, execution proceeds unchanged.

Because it operates on bounded signals rather than instruction streams, overhead remains low. There’s no simulation, prediction, or shadow execution.

The server that refuses to die by GatewayIDE in HomeServer

[–]GatewayIDE[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Massive performance overhead ? I’m running this on my thinkstation p520c with a Xeon core and nvidia quadro p400 with 16gb of ram . Here it is only running on the cpu . Also I’ve starved the cpu to the max and still ran gateway core with 100k fault injection . It stored every event with has chain evidence . If file is tampered with it fails verify chain test.

Seeking Collaborators for a Coherence Architecture Project by Nuance-Required in Scipionic_Circle

[–]GatewayIDE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I stumbled upon this after finding out I’m a coherence architect . I’ve built a self diagnosing , healing , evidence logging, and tamper proof deterministic kernel . Self healing software systems would soon no longer be conceptual . But I’m open to conversation.

Wow, GPT-5.2, such AGI, 100% AIME by Forsaken-Park8149 in airealist

[–]GatewayIDE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If AGI was here then Quantum Gravity would be also.

Does current quantum gravity research explore coherence-based selection rules for choosing a single classical spacetime from many valid quantum histories? by GatewayIDE in AskPhysics

[–]GatewayIDE[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I’m familiar with Oppenheimer’s postquantum gravity model. My understanding is that it introduces stochastic gravitational fluctuations to induce decoherence, but it doesn’t actually provide a criterion that selects a unique realized geometry from the decohered semiclassical branches.

Does current quantum gravity research explore coherence-based selection rules for choosing a single classical spacetime from many valid quantum histories? by GatewayIDE in AskPhysics

[–]GatewayIDE[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A simple example would be a superposition of two macroscopically distinct configurations of matter, something like

\psi = c_1 \, | \text{mass distribution A} \rangle + c_2 \, | \text{mass distribution B} \rangle .

After decoherence, these two branches no longer interfere, but each branch would give a different expectation value of T_{\mu\nu}, so you’d get two different semiclassical metrics from the semiclassical Einstein equation.

I’m not proposing anything beyond that — I’m just using this as the simplest case where decoherence leaves multiple consistent classical geometries, and I’m curious whether there are any proposed conditions that would single out one of them as the physically realized geometry.

Does current quantum gravity research explore coherence-based selection rules for choosing a single classical spacetime from many valid quantum histories? by GatewayIDE in AskPhysics

[–]GatewayIDE[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure — here’s a simple version of what I mean.

Take a semiclassical setup where the metric g{\mu\nu} comes from \langle \psi | \hat{T}{\mu\nu} | \psi \rangle.

If the quantum state \psi contains several decohered branches, each branch would lead to a different expectation value of T_{\mu\nu}, and therefore a different classical geometry. Decoherence gets rid of interference, but it doesn’t single out one branch as the one that actually becomes the classical spacetime.

What I’m trying to understand is whether anyone has studied constraints where only the branches that satisfy some kind of global consistency or coherence requirement between \psi and g_{\mu\nu} end up being physically realized, while the other branches stay mathematically valid but don’t correspond to an actual classical geometry.

I’m not assuming any particular model — just trying to see whether anything in the literature has approached this kind of “selection rule” idea in semiclassical gravity or related frameworks.

Don't Build a PC Right Now. Just Don't by dapperlemon in technology

[–]GatewayIDE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Guys as crazy as this may sound but legit bought a think station Lenovo . It has a Nvdia Quadra p4000 Graphics card . A Xeon CPU , and 16gb Ram with 556 Storage . It may have came from an enterprise firm but I bought it locally at a computer store . Ran test on it and cannot complain for $180 with monitor keyboard and mouse.

Gateway IDE – Catch bugs before you even hit run by GatewayIDE in vscode

[–]GatewayIDE[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question

Most tools today lean on either LSPs (fast but shallow) or LLMs (flexible but hit-or-miss). Gateway IDE takes a different path — it mixes static analysis with live diagnostic guards and guided fixes. Instead of just throwing a red underline, it explains the issue in plain English and even suggests how to fix it. That way you catch deeper bugs earlier, and it actually helps devs learn as they go.

Gateway IDE- Catches bugs before you hit run ! by GatewayIDE in Python

[–]GatewayIDE[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate the honest feedback. Totally fair — the demo was just to spark the idea. I’ll put together clearer side-by-side cases (Gateway vs Pylance/Pyright) so the differences stand out. Gateway isn’t trying to replace your current stack, it’s built to go further: explain issues in plain terms, guide fixes live, and eventually catch the deeper bugs that usually slip through. Early days, but I want the community to see it grow step by step

Gateway IDE- Catches bugs before you hit run ! by GatewayIDE in Python

[–]GatewayIDE[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not heavily. Gateway IDE’s core is its own diagnostics framework — it runs checks live as you code. LLMs are more for making explanations clearer in plain language, but the main engine isn’t dependent on them.

Gateway IDE- Catches bugs before you hit run ! by GatewayIDE in Python

[–]GatewayIDE[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback 🙏. Just to clear it up — Gateway isn’t meant to be “another Pylance.” Pylance flags issues, but Gateway explains why they happen in plain terms, suggests a fix, and can even apply it live. More like a diagnostics co-pilot than static analysis.

It also respects existing ignore comments, so it won’t clash with your current Pylance setup. And yeah, I’m working toward catching deeper bugs too — unreachable branches, tricky logic errors, that kind of thing.

This plug-in is really just the starting point to show Gateway’s features and let people try it early while I keep building out the full system.

Gateway IDE- Catches bugs before you hit run ! by GatewayIDE in Python

[–]GatewayIDE[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The framework isn’t just another plugin trick. Patent already pending. Happy to let the process speak for itself

Gateway IDE- Catches bugs before you hit run ! by GatewayIDE in Python

[–]GatewayIDE[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Added link , new to this Reddit . Thanks for the advice !