Advice to graduate students: If you're not getting into petty conflicts with other researchers working on similar questions, you're doing it wrong.

watching the talks from Berkeley proofs workshop, and happy to see that also in theory circles it's becoming accepted to say zkzk to mean you actually have zk.

Developer conference but make it cool. NoirCon 2 brought the future of private apps to life. Catch the talks here:

Yampolsky perfectly articulates my thoughts on QC here:

Whomever wrote the script for last season of squid games nice job!

Not snarks for once: Does someone know how the mechanism described in Section 2 here relates to known algorithmic stable coins? The basic idea is there are dollars and bonds. Bonds generate dollars and expire. And whenever there are more dollars than bonds, we do an auction to create more bonds.

The amount of money and resources that will be spent switching to post quantum crypto because of these quantum computers that can only do random circuit sampling, i.e. can't compute anything....it's just so dumb, but it's a narrative you can't fight. Everybody is on board.

Just saw a new paper on eprint on understanding Lasso and saw it doesn't even cite Tassle. A good chance to repeat, Tassle is an incredibly readable (and optimized) variant of Lasso. It should get more attention

Program looks really good!

Personal opinion: If you're working with a programming language where you're waiting for an update that allows you to concatenate strings that might never come...besides for your personal entertainment and challenge, it's probably not the right place to verify snarks/starks.