Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WikipediaP2P

wikipediap2p.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: WikipediaP2P

#101

Post by tomrod »

thatcat wrote: post #89
hmexx wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Views don't have to be binary like "it's a hoax" or "the end is near". In between those 2 you have stuff like: - World may be warming but I don't believe we should act yet - World may be warming but I don't believe the actions we are taking make a difference - World is warming but I don't believe we know whether the result will be necessary a "bad thing" - World is warming but I don't believe we know the main cause -…

Problem is while those reasons may help people sleep at night, none resemble a logical chain of reasoning. Seems more like a list justifications for apathy in spite of opposing evidence bc trying is politically untenable and denying science is easier.

A complete logic must take into account individual preferences, not merely species survival.

The opportunity costs towards an individual to willingly shift and adapt to climate change is fairly high -- until Pigovian taxes or some such are implemented the adoption rate will be small for prevention. We're likely in the stage now where policies around adaption need to be crafted and planned.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#102

Post by grzm »

grzm wrote: post #80
wyager wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For every person who thinks global warming isn't real (for some reason), there's someone who thinks we're all going to get killed by a giant global warming-induced tsunami like in that awful movie. Climate change is controversial, because people are making many claims without sufficient evidence (e.g. completely trusting some set of our current predictive models) or using it as a justification for political ends (lik…

"people are making many claims without sufficient evidence (e.g. completely trusting some set of our current predictive models)" Do you believe climate change is a problem and should be addressed but see others making claims beyond what the evidence supports? Or do you think climate change isn't an issue? If the former, what in particular are you thinking of? If the latter, what would it take to convince you that it'…

This is an honest question. If you think the questions are unfair, or off base, or phrased poorly, I'd appreciate a comment.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#103

Post by ensignavenger »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #94
ensignavenger wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even accepting the science, there is plenty of room for controversy over what actions should be taken as a result.

Yea the true controversy isn't weather the climate is changing but rather the rate at which it is occurring and the degree to which humans should intervene to take corrective action.

And amongst the options of ways to intervene which ones to choose? Some of which are probably mutually exclusive.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#104

Post by brownbat »

0xfeba wrote: post #78
notheguyouthink wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My coworker doesn't "believe" in global warming, but i have some sympathy on the lack of belief. I know that for most topics i make uninformed decisions based on the information created/curated by intelligent people. Eg, global warming, vaccinations, etcetc. Sure, some of it may seem obvious, but lets be honest - i have no clue about what a vaccination does in the body, nor how climate change works. They're not schoo…

> Why would climate change be a hoax? Who is making money off of a "climate change hoax"? This is one thing I really don't understand as well. Ok, there's X amount of proof in favor of AGW. Where's the evidence for your claims it's all an elaborate, international hoax? Where's the money? I've never gotten a good answer. Usually just deflections to how "the Earth always fluctuates" and other dismissive claims that hav…

I do not believe it's a hoax, but a lot of disciplines develop unintentional publication biases, so that sensational or apocalyptic findings are probably easier to publish.

Again, I don't think that's what's going on, but I know a lot of people who question or dismiss the median conclusions in other scientific disciplines, like economics, because of some perception of systemic bias.

Myself, I might discount health studies, but maybe I'm biased by the ones that the media chooses to report, which seem to be mostly contradictory nonsense about how chocolate and wine will make you live forever.

This is just a conjecture. If I'm right, I'm not sure if that's supposed to make you feel better (because your opponents are more rational than you thought) or worse (because complex epistemology is not likely a topic you can discuss with 60% of people).

Re: WikipediaP2P

#105

Post by koolba »

oceanofsolaris wrote: post #56
osense wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> controversial topics like [..] Climate Change You're making me sad on a Friday afternoon.

Let's reformulate it then: topics where some actors have a strong incentive (monetary or emotional) to manipulate other peoples opinion.

> Let's reformulate it then: topics where some actors have a strong incentive (monetary or emotional) to manipulate other peoples opinion.

So North Korea doesn't exist right? :D

Re: WikipediaP2P

#106

Post by b3n »

dmytrish wrote: post #33
Izeau wrote: post #21

Why the “Read and change all your data on the websites you visit” permission? Also, the “Fork me on GitHub” banner on your website is behind the fancy canvas so we can’t actually click it (Chrome 54). Great idea otherwise!

Also, a separate domain, wikipediap2p.org, not (obviously) affiliated with wikipedia.org. If it were p2p.wikipedia.org, it would be fine for me.

It says on the page: "This is an unofficial extension and not endorsed by Wikipedia in any way, it's just an implementation of latest web-technologies towards sharing of knowelege."

Re: WikipediaP2P

#107

Post by posterboy »

oceanofsolaris wrote: post #87
shmageggy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't answer your question, but it says it's based on CacheP2P, which itself says ( http://www.cachep2p.com/api.html ) it's 99.99% WebTorrent ( https://webtorrent.io/ ). It doesn't look like WebTorrent is meant to deal with content that is continually changing, and I wasn't able to determine (after about 30 seconds of looking) how either of the two layers on top address that

Thanks for actually looking into the mentioned problems instead of going on a tangent about climate change ;) CacheP2P seems to solve the problem by including a list of sha1 hashes for all files that are distributed through P2P. Speculation time: I guess distributing the sha1 hashes for every wikipedia page is a bit too much (especially considering they are always changing). So with every page, you would only distrib…

Edit: 2.5 Mb was wrong, shame on me -_-

5 Million articles, 512b per Hash, if that's enough, gives 2.5 Gb. Updates can be much smaller. Multiply that by 10 for hashes of the nearest users, who have a copy, and that's still manageable. Just of the top of my head.

edit: inb4 a blockchained approach.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#108

Post by gcr »

posterboy wrote: post #107
oceanofsolaris wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for actually looking into the mentioned problems instead of going on a tangent about climate change ;) CacheP2P seems to solve the problem by including a list of sha1 hashes for all files that are distributed through P2P. Speculation time: I guess distributing the sha1 hashes for every wikipedia page is a bit too much (especially considering they are always changing). So with every page, you would only distrib…

Edit: 2.5 Mb was wrong, shame on me -_- 5 Million articles, 512b per Hash, if that's enough, gives 2.5 Gb. Updates can be much smaller. Multiply that by 10 for hashes of the nearest users, who have a copy, and that's still manageable. Just of the top of my head. edit: inb4 a blockchained approach.

It's 320 MB.

5 million articles times 64 bytes per hash (512 bits) divided by 1e6 bytes per MB is 320.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#109

Post by grondilu »

This seems to be introducing synchronisation issues or something. I've just made an edit on an article, when I go back to it I see the edited version only if I manually refresh the page.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#110

Post by eltoozero »

notheguyouthink wrote: post #63
johnydepp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely correct!! You can't call 'Climate Change' a controversy now that we all are facing the consequences already!!

My coworker doesn't "believe" in global warming, but i have some sympathy on the lack of belief. I know that for most topics i make uninformed decisions based on the information created/curated by intelligent people. Eg, global warming, vaccinations, etcetc. Sure, some of it may seem obvious, but lets be honest - i have no clue about what a vaccination does in the body, nor how climate change works. They're not schoo…

> Why would climate change be a hoax? Who is making money off of a "climate change hoax"?

The entire "Cap and Trade" market?

Post reply on HN