Are you looking for an editor that can format YAML out-of-the-box or with plugins? In my experience, most editors only support a small number of formats out of the box and extend that functionality with plugins. I have yet to find a solid, production editor without a decent YAML formatter. If you’re using one of the common commercial ones, Red Hat maintains many that work explicitly for Ansible.

other given statements

Perhaps this is our fundamental misunderstanding! I am operating under these statements

P: I have nothing to hide Q: I should not be concerned about surveillance

In my opinion, everything after this is OP’s proof, ie we have no given statements ergo you calling out modus ponens is meaningless because, from our foundations, we could theoretically have ~P^Q, P^~Q, _P^Q, and P^Q. Our foundation provides no context on how P and Q interact, and, as both of us state, albeit for different reasons, we cannot conclude anything about their interaction.

Sure! Let’s go back to foundations. The foundation of modus ponens is, quoting your source,

If P -> Q and P, then Q

In order for this to work, we must have both P -> Q and P. Will you please quote OP that shows we have P -> Q, as I have asked from the beginning, instead of making personal attacks? Alternatively, if I’m missing something in my foundations, such as “P -> Q can always be assumed in any basic symbolic context without proof,” educate me. As you have bolded, we can use modus ponens if and only if (necessary and sufficient) we have its requirements. If we don’t, per your source, we cannot use it to prove anything.

From your source, we must first have P -> Q. You have not demonstrated that. Sure, if we assume that P -> Q, then P -> Q. That’s a tautology. OP’s goal is to prove P -> Q. I’ve said this multiple times as did OP. Your consistent sharing of a truth table is a necessary condition for P -> Q but it is not sufficient. If P -> Q, then the truth table is valid. That’s modus ponens. You still gotta show (or assume like you have been) that P -> Q.

To quote OP,

P -> Q

I will be providing a proof by counterexample

In other words, P -> Q is an unproven hypothesis. If P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. If we assume P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. But propositional calculus unfortunately requires we prove things, not just show things that will be true if our original assumption is true.

You didn’t read OP, regularly refused back anything up, and came in with ad hominem. When others vote in a way that disagrees with you, you claim a conspiracy. I think the only person here acting in bad faith is you. I have tried to expand OP’s understanding of their proposal and you have only attacked people. You have attempted to insult me multiple times. Granted, I did take a swipe at you begging the question, so you could argue some bad faith was merited, but you saying I’ve never done logic while missing me explaining to you the point you’re suddenly trying to make (“necessary but not sufficient”) continues the poor student metaphor.

I’m sorry you found “good luck” to be patronizing. Does “have fun” work?

Still failing…

Reread OP. All you did was provide a truth table that is necessary but not sufficient. Given A and given B, with literally nothing else, prove A -> B.

You postmodernist you

Now this is a logical fallacy. While many might agree it’s a proper response to Quine or Kripke, I think it’s just kinda sad. Good luck!

How so?

OP said that, given A and B, they would prove A -> B via negation, meaning the truth table you built does not yet exist and must be proved.

It is rather…

OP is not trying to use language, OP is trying to use propositional calculus. Using language unattached to propositional calculus is meaningless in this context.

This is textbook modus ponens

No, it’s not. Textbook modus ponens is when you are given A -> B. We are given A and B and are trying to prove A -> B. Never in any of my reading have I ever seen someone say “We want to prove A -> B ergo given A and B, A -> B.” I mean, had I graded symbolic logic papers, I probably would have because it’s a textbook mistake to write a proof that just has the conclusion with none of the work. As the in group, we may assume A -> B in this situation; OP was taking some new tools they’ve picked up and applying them to something OP appears passionate about to prove our assumptions.

how dare you

I was responding to OP. Why are you getting mad at me instead of getting mad at OP? OP brought propositional logic to a relativistic conversation. My goal was show why that’s a bad idea. You have proven my point incredibly well.

You made the same leap that OP did.

[I]t is logically accepted that there might be other reasons, even unknown.

No, it’s not. That’s what I’m calling out. This doesn’t follow from A or B and requires further definition. While you’re using to explain case b, OP tried to use it to explain case c. In both cases, you are assuming some sort of framework that allows you to build these truth tables from real life. That’s where my ask for a consistent formal system comes from.

In your case b, we have not(I have something to hide) and (I am not concerned about surveillance). Since OP is not saying that the two are necessary and sufficient, we don’t really care. However, in your case c, where we have I have nothing to hide and not(I am not concerned about surveillance), both of you say we are logically allowed to force that to make sense. It’s now an axiom that A and not B cannot be; it has not come from within our proof or our formal system. We waved our hands and said there’s no way for that to happen. Remember, we started with the assumption we could prove A -> B by negation, not that A -> B was guaranteed.

If you’ll notice my last paragraph in my first post basically says the same thing your last paragraph says.

I’m not sure how you prove by negation in this case just via modus ponens. Care to enlighten me? I opened with something that doesn’t follow so that would be a great place to start.

Give me a consistent formal system with a list of theorems to prove OP’s conjecture and I’ll show you how we have gaps in the system. My analytic philosophy is pretty rusty; I think there are a few 20th century folks you can start from for this.

Some may have nothing to hide, but still be concerned about the state of surveillance

This is where your proof falls apart. It follows from nothing you’ve established and relies on context outside of our proof, which does not work with propositional logic. Another commenter goes into a bit more detail with some pre-defined axioms; with the right axioms you can wave away anything. However you have to agree on your axioms to begin with (this is the foundation of things like non-Euclidean geometry; choose to accept normally unacceptable axioms).

A rigorous proof using propositional calculus would have to start with the definitions of what things are, what hiding means, what surveillance is, how it relates to hiding, and slowly work your way to showing, based on the definitions and lemmas you’ve built along the way, how this actually works. Understanding how to build arithmetic from the Peano Axioms is a good foundation.

However, by attempting to represent this conversation in formal logic, we fall prey to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, which means something beyond the axioms in our system has to be based on faith. This arguably leads us back to the beginning, where “nothing to hide” and “state surveillance” fall under personal preference.

Please note that I think “nothing to hide” is bullshit always and do not support heavy surveillance. I like the discussion you’ve started.

This is pretty far from a proof of any variety. I think the spirit is there and the ideas are great. Spend a little more time on the execution, maybe tie in some Quine, and I think you’d have something.

And as long as you don’t need simple access to most features such as volumes. The podman implementation on not Linux leaves quite a bit to be desired for anyone trying to do more than just run a binary wrapped in a container. I’m not throwing shade because it’s FOSS and anything is better than Docker. Only Docker will work for a production-capable dev environment on not Linux unless podman’s development has exponentially increased in the last year since I tried to move a shop to podman on not Linux.

As long as you’re on Linux, podman is superior and will do all of the things you’re asking about. If you need to also support Windows or Mac, Docker is the only thing that will work (although people have told me Rancher isn’t bad now for a couple of years).

Nice! That second one is just a repost of your first.

I wonder where the sources for this are? The hidden Margaritelli Twitter post?

Canonical and Red Hat have not only confirmed the vulnerability’s high severity but are also actively working on assessing its impact and developing patches.

The Twitter account has been privated and there are no news stories about it. Other communities where this has been shared are reasonably suspicious.

That’s a huge misrepresentation of what Mitnick did and how the government mischarged him. He did a bunch of dumb stuff that was illegal. He was overcharged in very bad ways supporting ridiculous lies from the companies he broke into.

In another post you’re actively looking at purchasing GPS systems. The satellites you’re sending info to are not available to dissect and I highly doubt the firmware of the devices you’re looking at is publicly available much less libre. Your trolling is not internally consistent so it’s clear you don’t have any clue what you’re on about. Good luck with that.

The claim is that audio and video are E2EE. I’m not sure how you’re unable to disprove that using the linked code, audit report, and COTS debugging tools. Can you expand on that? I see a lot of FUD without anything more than “they’re not libre” which, again, doesn’t do a great job of selling your point.

Interesting. I was able to access the linked whitepaper and repositories without trouble and the 3rd party stuff too. Do you have local config preventing you from downloading the source code to review?

While I can respect your distaste for non-libre software, you’ll need to back up the malware claim. There are real security concerns out there in common non-libre; labeling things that are not libre as malware solely because they are not libre muddies the waters and makes your message much less palatable.

You realize that Bitcoin is traceable, right? You kinda picked the wrong crypto to use as an example. Unless you’re completely in the Bitcoin system and never connect to any outside system or interact with anyone who interacts with an outside system or interact with anyone who interacts with someone who interacts with an outside system or so on (it’s not quite ad infinitum), you are most likely traceable. Tools like Chainalysis have been used by governments for almost a decade.

Your other points aren’t really valid if you ever want to convert Bitcoin to something that isn’t Bitcoin. I’m not aware of complete supply chains and grids that exist solely on Bitcoin (or any combination of crypto for that matter) so things like having control of your money, needing ID, and trusting centralized entities (sure, exchanges plural) are a huge part of Bitcoin.