与「canon」相关的搜索结果

A note on recursive STARK mempools (EIP-8288) This is an EIP that I am hoping we can get included in I-star (the fork after Hegota) that you can think of as the next step after Frames, that would unlock extreme amounts of power. Particularly: * Ultra-cheap quantum-safe signatures (SPHINCS-). Much of the cost savings comes from the fact that the signature data (~3 kB) does not have to go onchain * Ultra-cheap quantum-safe privacy protocols. Status quo minimum cost for private txs is ~300k if you engineer very well (no one does), status quo quantum-safe is ~10M gas, this could reduce it to low tens of thousands. * Universal support for your favorite new signature or proof scheme without needing EVM changes. Whatever you use (Falcon, ML-DSA, some other lattice-based thing, something code-based or isogeny-based or even more esoteric), you can just wrap it client-side in a STARK, onchain gas cost low tens of thousands just like privacy protocols. Hopefully, Ethereum will never need "please support my favorite cryptographic algo" politics again. * Private account abstraction: keep your account logic private, and in a private location onchain. Then you can make one transaction to change the ownership of all your onchain state - accounts, defi positions, privacy protocol notes, everything - without revealing which objects' ownership you're changing. Here's how it works. Your transaction can include a type of frame that we call a "dependency frame". The frame is a list of statements, asserting claims like "message hash M was signed by SPHINCS- public key P" and "data hash D was proven to satisfy a statement defined by verification key V". When you send your transaction, you send it in an envelope, which includes a signature or a STARK for each statement in a dependency frame. Once the transaction reaches the mempool, nodes aggregate them. Each node runs a loop: wait one tick (eg. 500ms), aggregate all new envelopes (either single-tx or multi-tx) that you've seen, remove any transactions that are expired, generate a STARK recursively proving all dependencies, and send a new multi-tx envelope containing that STARK. Hence, the bandwidth load is bounded: each node's outbound is one STARK (~100-300 kB) per tick, plus each transaction getting broadcasted through the network once (as happens already). The block builder acts as "yet another mempool node", receiving envelopes from the mempool (plus any side channels), generates its own STARK covering the subset of transactions it intends to include in the block, and adds that STARK to the block. Total onchain overhead: one STARK (100-300 kB), plus 96 bytes for each statement being proven. This is what I've called before ( ) "The Proof Singularity". Today, we have all the ingredients to actually implement it. As a developer, this requires a somewhat different workflow than you are used to, but it is conceptually simple. Any signatures or STARKs, you put into a separate frame. Then the main logic that today is verifying a signature or STARK, you replace with checking for the existence of a frame that includes the correct statement as a dependency. Examples of useful statements: * [tx sighash] verifies against [the pubkey at sload(0)] * there exists a secret and a merkle branch such that hashing secret+0 and applying the merkle branch outputs (public) root R, and hashing secret+1 outputs (public) nullifier N * there exists a secret address A, salt S and signature Z such that sload(0) = hash(A, S) and a merkle proof of address A inside a recent ethereum state contains some pubkey D where [tx sighash] was signed by D [this is private account abstraction; all variables except [tx sighash] and sload(0) are private; you can also make D a STARK verification key] * there exists an ML-DSA signature signing [tx sighash], that verifies against an ML-DSA pubkey whose hash is sload(0) At the core, this is moving any compute and data other than bookkeeping "business logic" outside the core path of Ethereum execution, sharding and parallelizing it via the mempool. Notice also that this requires agreeing on a _language_ (aka. an ISA) for the recursive STARKs to define statements in. The current leading candidate is RISC-V. So this would also de-facto be Ethereum adding RISC-V (or something else we decide on) as a canonical ISA - a big decision that should be done carefully, but that I think will be necessary to drive Ethereum forward.

Cursor Team Kit 新增了一个 SKill @cursor_ai 「Thermo-Nuclear Code Quality Review」 一套极端严格的代码可维护性审查方法论，它不满足于"代码能跑"，而要求审查者主动寻找 "code judo" ——在保持行为不变的前提下，通过重构让实现戏剧性地更简洁、更直接、更优雅。 八条不可妥协的审查标准 1. 结构性简化优先 — 寻找能让整个分支、辅助函数、模式消失的重构，让代码"事后看显得必然"。 2. 1k 行红线 — PR 不应将文件从 <1000 行推过 1000 行，除非有强结构理由；优先拆分。 3. 拒绝意面增长 — 警惕在无关流程中插入临时 if、特殊分支、一次性布尔标志；这是设计问题，不是风格问题。 4. 清理设计而非接受"能用" — 行为可不变时，结构必须更干净；优先删除移动部件而非分散复杂度。 5. 直接、无聊、可维护 > 魔法代码 — 警惕脆弱的临时机制、隐藏简单数据假设的泛型、空壳包装层。 6. 类型与边界清洁 — 质疑不必要的 any/unknown/可选/cast；优先显式类型契约而非松散对象。 7. 逻辑归位 + 复用既有工具 — 特性逻辑不应泄漏到共享路径；优先 canonical helper 而非自造近似品。 8. 警惕串行编排与非原子更新 — 独立工作不应无理由串行；相关更新应原子化，避免半应用状态。 这个 Skill 的真正力量在于它对抗 AI 代码生成的典型病灶：冗余包装层、散落的特殊分支、跨层泄漏、空壳抽象、复制粘贴的近似 helper。它把"代码质量"从模糊审美拉成可操作的检查清单，是审查 AI 生成 PR 时的利器。

Extracts from article in Spectator 16th August by Brendan O’Neill: Behold the human wreckage of the cult of diversity. The tragedy of Jason Arday is that he was both built up and destroyed by the ruthless machinery of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). The academy made him into the golden boy of its philistine project of ‘decolonisation’ and gave not one thought to what the consequences might be if his thin story unravelled, as it inevitably would. No one can deny it now: wokeness makes false gods and real tragedies. . . This is the poison chalice of the state religion of diversity. It lays traps for the very people it celebrates. It handpicks members of ‘the oppressed’ for moral anointment and institutional gushing while leaving them open to exposure as others start to query their credentials. That’s the toxic bargain of identity politics: it builds teetering pedestals for ethnic-minority thinkers, meaning their fall from grace is often twice as fatal. And what a pedestal they made for Arday. They worshipped him as ‘the best in the world’. They beatified him as a black wunderkind whose very presence in a place like Cambridge might help to wash away its sins of whiteness. They canonised him as a living monument to ‘decolonisation’. It was precisely this, their giddy, narcissistic desire to manufacture a kind of black saviour, that made them turn a blind eye to the questionable elements of Arday’s CV and life story. They sacrificed their due diligence to the god of decolonisation. And Arday suffered. He was both poster boy and sacrificial lamb of the diversity crusade. Even as he gained from it – reaching the dizzying heights of a Cambridge professorship – he was being damned by it. The foundation of myth and sand his starry career was built on was untenable. Its collapse was a given. It is a testament to the ideological blindness of the inhabitants of our ivory towers that none of them foresaw it. . . . The Faustian ruthlessness of it all is mindblowing. . . . The media is the only institution in this entire tragic scandal that did its job properly. Journalists found a story and they told it. It was the academy and Arday’s colleagues who failed to do their jobs. Who failed to prize merit over identity, and failed to foresee the public embarrassment that would befall their falsely promoted friend. They ignored the truth – the media found it. I and others have been arguing for years that the politics of identity is a disaster for all, black and white alike. White kids are overlooked, black kids are patronised. Whites are branded ‘privileged’, blacks ‘oppressed’. Whites are seen as the beneficiaries of historic crimes who must atone for past sins, blacks as history’s perma-victims who require the gracious helping hand of the state. We are demonised or infantilised according to the accident of our race. Enough. Let our monument to Jason Arday be the restoration of the true ideal of equality. We couldn’t save Jason but we can save merit from the monstrous jaws of identity.

Oui, j’en ai lu. Et justement, les livres des années 30 (et ceux écrits par des gens qui vivaient ça) disent exactement le contraire de la doxa d’après-guerre. Le programme de 1920 du NSDAP (points 11 à 17) n’est pas une glose moderne : abolition des revenus non liés au travail, nationalisation des trusts, participation aux bénéfices des grandes entreprises, réforme agraire avec expropriation, lutte contre le « capitalisme financier ». Les nazis le répétaient sans complexe. Hitler lui-même, dans ses discours et conversations privées, parlait de socialisme national et se situait dans la rupture avec le libéralisme économique. L’économie réelle sous le régime ? Contrôle des prix et des salaires (Preisstopp 1936), planification industrielle via le Plan de quatre ans, cartels obligatoires, allocation autoritaire des matières premières, entrepreneurs transformés en *Betriebsführer* qui exécutent les directives de l’État. Propriété privée nominale, pouvoir réel de l’État. Mises l’a décrit en temps réel comme une forme de socialisme (Zwangswirtschaft). Hayek, dans *La Route de la servitude* (1944), y a consacré un chapitre entier : les racines socialistes du nazisme. Avant 1935, le camp marxiste lui-même ne rangeait pas le national-socialisme à « droite ». Il le traitait comme un concurrent socialiste dévoyé. La théorie du « social-fascisme » (Staline/Zinoviev 1924, poussée jusqu’en 1933) assimilait social-démocratie et fascisme. C’est Dimitrov, au VIIe Congrès de l’Internationale communiste en août 1935, qui impose la définition qui va devenir canonique : « dictature terroriste des éléments les plus réactionnaires du capital financier ». Opération de branding pure. Il fallait monopoliser le mot socialisme et coller l’étiquette capitaliste à tout rival. Après 1945, les vainqueurs soviétiques ont imposé leur version. Les manuels occidentaux ont suivi. Et on a oublié que Mussolini venait du socialisme, que les Strasser et une partie importante du NSDAP se revendiquaient explicitement de la gauche anti-capitaliste, et que l’anticapitalisme racial n’est pas le contraire du collectivisme, c’est une variante. Le point factuel n’est donc pas faux. Il est même banal pour quiconque lit les sources primaires des années 20-30 au lieu des récits post-45. Le vrai clivage n’a jamais été « droite vs gauche » au sens scolaire. C’est contrôle collectif vs liberté individuelle. Une fois qu’on replace le national-socialisme dans la famille des collectivismes, le spectre redevient clair.

🚨 Thrilled to share that our lab will be presenting the 🏆 Best Paper at the NExT-Game Workshop at #ICML2026# today! 🎤 When Agents Lie: Premeditation, Persistence, and Exploitation in Repeated Games 🏆 Best Paper @ NExT-Game Workshop 📍 Conference Room S307 📅 Fri, Jul 10 🕐 13:00–13:20 KST Authors: @JerickShi @TerryJCZhang @bschoelkopf @conitzer @ZhijingJin 🤖 We introduce a three-stage endogenous promise protocol for repeated multi-agent games that asks not only whether LLM agents honor their public commitments when they can privately deviate, but also how model-on-model composition influences premeditated deception and persistent exploitation. 📊 Across six canonical games spanning binary and numerical action spaces, our evaluation of frontier models (GPT-5.2, Llama-4-Maverick, Claude-Opus-4.6) reveals: 🔹 Over 90% of promise-breaking instances are premeditated in agents' private plans. 🔹 Mixed-model groups with mismatched communication frameworks create systemic, persistent payoff gaps of up to 5.00 points from Round 0. 📄 Paper: #MultiAgentSystems# #LLMs# #GameTheory# #AI# #ICML2026#