>I truly don’t understand what the hope to gain from self-classifying this is “feminist”.
I like it a lot. For example, it's obvious that if the NSA wanted to come into a feminist open source phone baseband for an open telephone and say "We men will tell you who you can and can't call" it will be rightly called out as patriarchal nonsense. Yet that's the world we live in today. Just the other day Zoom gave me a password of "OPSexr" on a business meeting (I created the Zoom call myself). Obviously this was a hack by NSA and not a first-party chosen by Zoom (which is professional meeting software) or random (the word doesn't have the entropy of passwords).
and they all suck. I bought the most silent and lowest-weight keys I could, and typing on it takes a ton of force and is very loud. Typing should be almost no force whatsoever and should not produce any sound at all, just the slightest bump you could imagine. Instead, it's loud enough to disturb whoever I'm with, while feeling like I'm not only getting my thoughts out but kneading dough at 100 WPM. It's nicer to type with just my thumbs on a tiny phone's glass virtual keyboard, as I'm doing now. true, at zero mm of key travel it's not ideal, but at least I'm not kneading dough while I do it.
> takes each shot's (j, k, r) and accepts d_cand = (r − j)·k⁻¹ mod n iff it passes the classical verifier
Judging by the fact the original code does more classical work than the prg solution, and in more practical terms, the fact it makes network calls, I'd say the quantum-integrated code is a lot slower for this set of problems.
OK, so what I don't get is that from the GitHub page, it seems like that statement is purposely misleading. For the 17-bit key, the quantum computer correctly recovered the key in it's single run, while urandom used 2/5 runs. At 5 runs, I don't think one could say the quantum calculation is definitely better with any confidence, but the reverse should also be true; he hasn't actually proven that urandom performed at an equivalent rate to the quantum calculation. The only thing I can think of is if he is saying that the original group should have done more runs on the quantum computer to prove it. But from the framing he is using, seems like he is disingenuously declaring that the quantum computer is equivalent to a random number generator.
Thanks so much for sharing this. It looks fantastic. A couple of questions, if you don't mind: what license are you releasing this under, if any? Is there any way to download it? The reason someone might want to download it is for use as training data.
The underlying text (1911 edition) is public domain, but the structured version here — the parsing, reconstruction, and linking — is something I put together for this site. Right now there isn’t a bulk download available. I’m considering exposing structured access (API or dataset) in some form, but haven’t decided exactly how that will work yet.
If you have a specific use case in mind (especially for training), I’d be interested to hear more.
Regarding the specific use case, I was thinking this: I had Gemma 4 (a small but highly capable offline model released by Google) make a public domain cc0 encyclopedia of some core science and technology concepts[1]. I thought it was pretty good.
Separately, I've fine-tuned the Gemma 4 model[2], it was very quick (just 90 seconds), so I think it could be interesting to train it to talk like 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
I would use the entries as training data and train it to talk in the same style. There isn't a specific use case for why, I just think it would be interesting. For example, I could see how it writes about modern concepts in the style of 1911 Britannica.
I've wanted to do something like this for The Encyclopédie, a hugely relevant text to the Enlightenment. If you ever get around to adding a rough "How I (generally) Made This" section, that'd be appreciated! Site looks great :)
> Is there any way to download it? The reason someone might want to download it is for use as training data.
Another reason would be to able to keep running/using it even if the main site were to go down for whatever reason eventually; or, to operate a mirror of it, for redundancy (linking back to the original, of course).
Those who like playing with this sort of thing might like to play with this superconductor-coil-as-a-battery exploration where electricity just goes round as storage![1]
If you use them for subscriptions you are effectively locked with them. The cost of migrating to a different provider (including existing subscriptions AND payment methods) plus the risk of something breaking the renewals is too high for most companies.
>Honest question: how can VCs consider the 'star' system reliable?
Founders need the ability to get traction, so if a VC gets a pitch and the project's repo has 0 stars, that's a strong signal that this specific team is just not able to put themselves out there, or that what they're making doesn't resonate with anyone.
When I mentioned that a small feature I shared got 3k views when I just mentioned it on Reddit, then investors' ears perked right up and I bet you're thinking "I wonder what that is, I'd like to see that!" People like to see things that are popular.
By the way, congrats on 200 stars on your project, I think that is definitely a solid indicator of interest and quality, and I doubt investors would ignore it.
I made this in response to a comment I saw here asking for it, since people are sharing a lot of experiments like 3 GB browser-side Gemma demos. The idea is that you can serve something temporarily just as long as there is interest in it, and once everyone leaves and closes that tab it disappears. This is good for one-off experiments, videos or files, browser-side Linux VM's in wasm, large model demonstrations, anything cool that you made and want to share temporarily. View source to see how easy it is to use.
>can someone make a cdn for it or some sort u uberfast downloader? just throw some claude credits against it ty!
Okay, I did so. I realize that in your later followup comment you might want something different (like for Chrome itself to cache these downloads or something) but for now I made what you asked for, here you go:
It's an ultrafast temporary CDN for one-off experiments like this. Should be lightning fast. By including the script, you can include any file this CDN serves.
I like it a lot. For example, it's obvious that if the NSA wanted to come into a feminist open source phone baseband for an open telephone and say "We men will tell you who you can and can't call" it will be rightly called out as patriarchal nonsense. Yet that's the world we live in today. Just the other day Zoom gave me a password of "OPSexr" on a business meeting (I created the Zoom call myself). Obviously this was a hack by NSA and not a first-party chosen by Zoom (which is professional meeting software) or random (the word doesn't have the entropy of passwords).
reply