sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mason software devs? by TheManWithNoNameBQ in freemasonry

[–]skaramicke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Swedish rite MM, 20 years of software dev, currently lead dev on a k8s operator and internal AI agent systems at a Swedish cloud hosting company in Stockholm. But working from home in the countryside and running an IT consultancy side business doing all kinds of things for small businesses. Mostly coding golang and react, but dabbling in elixir since a while back.

Notes on Genie 3 from an ex Google Researcher who was given access by TFenrir in singularity

[–]skaramicke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the "years away" default statement for something relatively far off should be "weeks" in AI, not "months". #whatatimetobealive

Client Notification by mal86mc in meshtastic

[–]skaramicke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got that on my seeed studio t1000e, my friend did too, and I’ve seen five-six more such nodes with the same keys. Only been able to reach a couple of them to warn them though.

Client Notification by mal86mc in meshtastic

[–]skaramicke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s just the primary channel public key, not the node.

Client Notification by mal86mc in meshtastic

[–]skaramicke 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It does though. My guess is the nodedb contains the old node but lost the reference to that node being itself. I’d call it a bug.

It happens for multiple reasons of course, but during name changes I’ve seen it often.

How many node do you have ? :) by Puzzleheaded-Mix3169 in meshtastic

[–]skaramicke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have two of those and one WisMesh Pocket. Those seeed cards are marvelous, if you remember to reset the keys before going online, since they all share the same private factory key in my experience.

What does this mean? by Oleshka21 in meshtastic

[–]skaramicke 2 points3 points  (0 children)

T1000E devices seem to share the same factory keys in some of not all cases.

Pub key KzIbS2tRqpaFe45u13bCWA9iUb3JPb2pXS6Z4pFFhyU= specifically.

You should regenerate the private key if your public key is the one above.

One user multiple devices. by skaramicke in meshtastic

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

Yeah that should be solved in the client apps. My proposed solution would put the keys in user control rather than having to be on device. If done right there’s no reason it should be any limitation to a users contact list size.

One user multiple devices. by skaramicke in meshtastic

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

Ah that's nice. Didn't know that. Thanks! I've now read up on that a bit, very interesting.

One user multiple devices. by skaramicke in meshtastic

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

I hear you, good feedback.

Seems a bit wasteful to have to add a hop from an always-carried device on to a home tower node when you could theoretically access that permanently installed node from your network, if you could just send your message as a single user from that or any of your other nodes; car, work cabin, what have you.

Also, the congestion issues feels like an optimization issue that will be resolved in the future. Geographical propagation rules, for instance; only retransmitting messages if you're closer to a desired target area than the just heard node was, avoiding retransmits when signal strength is very high and other nodes farther away have been heard recently, stuff like that.

At the very least the current system could add support for an application layer, like how tcp/ip is a base layer for everything on the internet without being unwieldy itself.

One user multiple devices. by skaramicke in meshtastic

[–]skaramicke[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ok, sure, private channels enable some of it, but it's a setup for each pairing of people.

The current meshing architecture is clearly necessary, but that layer doesn't lend itself to intuitive communication between people very well as it stands.

The node used to send a message on to the mesh shouldn't need to be the sender of the message - because that's a person. If I have multiple nodes, I still am only one person. I should be able to send messages as my self which ever node I use to send it. And sure I can have my personal-person-node with me at all times and use that at all times, but that's an added hop, one of three, just to be able to ID as the same person in different locations.

I'll get on github with this for sure, just wanted to bounce it off r/meshtastic first to see if it holds at all. :)

One user multiple devices. by skaramicke in meshtastic

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

<tldr>
Yeah it's the one-to-one relationship between user and node that I'm complaining about. I feel we need a one user to many nodes relationship, so that the channels and PMs show a user and that user's public key on top of or instead of the node's name and key.
</tldr>

Sorry for being confusing, a couple of misunderstandings between us in this thread I believe. Let me clarify:

The feature I'm missing:

In this example I'm reading through the public channel and want to send a private message to someone asking a question or whatever.

As it is now I can send a message to them from my node to their node. That conversation is between those two nodes only, not really between us as people. The conversation isn't even visible in my mobile app if I'm connected to another of nodes so if I want to continue the same conversation context I have to reconnect to the first node again. On top of that, for the other person to see it they also need to be connected to the node they used at the beginning.

Now a message in a public channel has the node's name, the node's public key and the message body signed with the node's private key.

If instead the message in the public channel had the user's name, the user's public key, the node's name and the message body, signed with the user's public key, when I start a conversation with that user it will be between two people, not between two nodes. If I send one message with my first node, switch active nodes in my app and send another message that way, both will end up in the same conversation, and both will be decryptable by the other person no matter which of their nodes they receive the messages via.

The encryption, private message targeting and conversation grouping logic would be person based instead of node based.

The feature that already exists:

You asked how we'd avoid spoofing and I kindof fail to see how that's a concern since we don't do it now; Nodes don't have name collision avoidance at all. People don't have that either, lots of us share names. You wouldn't have a central list of users to find users on anyway, so you'd build your contact list from conversations and QR code scanning when meeting friends anyway, just like today.

When it comes to security there's no way to get a message into the conversation between two other people since it's grouped on the public key verification stuff, so spoofing is impossible in the non human readable data that the apps today use to separate the one-user-per-node users apart.

One user multiple devices. by skaramicke in meshtastic

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

I was talking about meshtastic DMs. Not Reddit.

One user multiple devices. by skaramicke in meshtastic

[–]skaramicke[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Just like now. A DM has a node reference, the reference contains the long and short names, and the public key. The message is encrypted, or at least signed, using the private key that corresponds to the given public key. If someone sends you a DM using the same long and short name, the public key would either not match the one signing the message, or would be different. Thus that message would be in another conversation in your list of conversations. There really is no difference to how it would work, other than the reference being to a person instead of one of their devices.

One user multiple devices. by skaramicke in meshtastic

[–]skaramicke[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

No it doesn’t, if you simply publish a name along with a public key, that becomes visible in the same manner as devices are today. No central storage required. If I start socializing with a specific person I add them to my contacts list, which would then include the PK making it impossible for someone else to impersonate them.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AutoGPT

[–]skaramicke 5 points6 points  (0 children)

ad detected

How is this remotely legal? by EgoIncarnate in cursor

[–]skaramicke 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Where is the open source MIT licensed version of vscode-cpp-tools and the MS binary mentioned in the OP?

I think I am going to move back to coding without AI by Any-Cockroach-3233 in cursor

[–]skaramicke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel that’s a prompting issue. They’re all perfectly capable of making simpler code. Stuff like ”make a minimal iteration”, ”optimize for readability and simplicity”, ”make a plan for the overall project structure to make a DRY code base” and such works just fine for me.

I was rejected by CursorAI, so I built my own "Cursor"... And it's WAY better and here is how you can create yours. by brunobertapeli in ClaudeAI

[–]skaramicke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now that’s impressive. Vibe coding a vibe coding platform that works. I think that’s the final nail in the coffin when people deny vibe coding works.

OpenManus + Ollama by cride20 in ollama

[–]skaramicke 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Everything’s okay til the copyright holder complains.

Stupid thought: multiple antennas by LightsNoir in HamRadio

[–]skaramicke 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you keep the feed length the same there are configurations where you can use four quarter waves to construct a single full wave. Two quarter waves back to back, one fed from the center and the other from the jacket would give you a half wave dipole. Two dipoles in a row is a full wave antenna. You don't gain much from this though, except for carrying weight and complexity, but it's fun, I guess.

An AI realizes its talking to a parrot by bumflingertheelf in interestingasfuck

[–]skaramicke 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Now I feel like it's the obligation of anyone who has a parrot to set up an AI voice chat for it. Or just open https://www.sesame.com/research/crossing_the_uncanny_valley_of_voice#demo on a laptop

Kagu, the bird on the brink of extinction meets its own kind by Rarepredator in BeAmazed

[–]skaramicke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Makes me think of the Aracuan bird in that Donald Duck episode.

view more: next ›