“How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No. A mother’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity a mother for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”

G.K. Chesterton

Rather than accepting the common sentiment of the day – that motherhood holds us back from greater things, let’s appreciate and be grateful that we are truly Everything to our young children.

Artwork: Maternal Affection, Georgios Jakobides, (Greek, 1853-1932)

you only need 2048, otherwise it's an ugly codebook

It has some flaws, but somehow I like it, it's an interesting solution; exploitation of visual memory in the UX and security is underestimated.

The first point to check is the entrophy and robustness of the generated key; 4 emoji seems really few (consider also that the full list has 1874 emoji, bip39 has 2048 words), but a password with an imposed min lenght could make the difference.

PS: I really like your attention for design's details, well done Niel.

Probably lots of reasons why this is a risky approach to key generation, but it is thinking outside the box - like it very much. I've only seen the keymoji video once, but I remember they key with ease.

Your design are so pleasant ⚡😅

Funny real world opposite example:

I appointed an estate agent to find me a tenant. They found one, so I needed to pay them. They needed to generate an invoice so I awaited this to obtain their bank details to transfer the money.

The accounts lady generating the invoice phoned me and asked for my bank account details. I explained they don’t need my details, I need theirs as I am paying them. She replied that they needed my bank details for AML purposes and if I don’t provide them, she cannot produce the invoice.

I replied, “so I guess that concludes our business then?”

At first she didn’t understand, so I repeated the statement.

I think they understand now.

Web of Trust (WoT) is a really hard concept to communicate.

I've been thinking about it a lot and trying to design something that most people can understand, and frankly there's no easy solution.

The best thing people can understand is a word. A label.

This is why I think the best thing to do is just to show how many people that you follow, also follow the person you're looking at.

And if you already follow that person, show an icon to indicate as much. Even this icon will be confusing to some people, but people will get used to the meaning.

Numbered scores, colors, or anything else we decide to use will only be misinterpreted.

Ultimately, I think WoT indicators other than a textual label are going to do harm to the user's perception of someone else, or to the person who sees that they are not an ideal number or color on someone else's screen.

People are not numbers or good / bad colors. We should probably never try to categorize ourselves as such.

Why the hate on “nostr address”? Feels good to me

Why the hate on “nostr address”? Feels good to me

Will strava on nostr motivate you to work towards fitness? nostr:note1vauc9wtqsp0vdy4xwn9l58dc78g6gennacshpn7k4tzndnsyzceqcq5r0x

yeah, "secret key" and "profile" are the words that i think will prevail eventually... a profile is like an icon of a person, one might be able to have many but usually each profile also represents one person... here's what the dictionary says about profile:

profile

[ proh-fahyl ]

Phonetic (Standard)

IPA

noun

the outline or contour of the human face, especially the face viewed from one side.

Synonyms: silhouette

a picture or representation of the side view of a head.

an outlined view, as of a city or mountain.

an outline of an object, as a molding, formed on a vertical plane passed through the object at right angles to one of its principal horizontal dimensions.

a drawing or the like representing this.

Surveying. a vertical section of the ground surface taken parallel to a survey line. Compare cross section ( def 6 ).

a verbal, arithmetical, or graphic summary or analysis of the history, status, etc., of a process, activity, relationship, or set of characteristics:

a biochemical profile of a patient's blood;

a profile of national consumer spending.

an informal biography or a concisely presented sketch of the life and character of a person.

Digital Technology. the personal details, images, user statistics, social media timeline, etc., that an individual creates and associates with a username or online account.

a set of characteristics or qualities that identify a type or category of person or thing:

a profile of a typical allergy sufferer.

the look, configuration, or lines of something:

cars with a modern profile.

degree of noticeability; visibility.

Psychology. a description of behavioral and personality traits of a person compared with accepted norms or standards.

Theater. a flat stage property or scenic piece cut from a firm, thin material, as of beaverboard or plywood, and having an irregular edge resembling the silhouette of a natural object.

(in a gear) the outline of either end of a tooth.

Naval Architecture. a longitudinal elevation or section of a vessel. Compare outboard profile.

This is SO spot on.

No client will disrupt the incumbents by themselves.

For the VAST majority of people:

👉 Twitter is better than Primal.

👉 Substack is better than Highlighter.

👉 Youtube is better than Zapstream.

No matter how good the products we make get (and we'll make them REALLY fucking good), the network effects of each player are incredibly hard to overcome.

Primal would need to get 200x or 500x better than the Twitter product for the experience to clear the famous "10x-better" bar an offering needs to achieve to yeild user change.

(One of) the upper-hands we DO have is interoperability.

That's our secret weapon.

But we'll only realize it's full potential if we fully embrace it and lean REALLY hard on it.

nostr:note1let7sydwfug3ar4re5m2akd0wkfvd3tqdjdg9sdr6329v7mr5dssmxhch9

the word "key" in computer science means an identifier

the use in combination with the concept of a secret is the reason for the muddle

the secret should be the key, and the public key should be the identifier, you see how the word "key" has different semantics in the CS convention? not only that, even worse is "private key" which is even more incorrect because private means not public, but doesn't exclude shared possession, and that's bad security!

what do you think about read key and write key?