I think I see your point. I've had it in the back of my head too.

Guess it's like the separation between backend and front-end. When the logic is neatly wrapped in a nice API you can potentially get a lot of reusability from that since the API can be integrated into other things with other use cases.

But a TUI probably doesn't naturally come with a separate backend. However, if a cli is built in a non TUI way it is about as flexible as a backend. Output can be streamed into pipes etc.

I can't stream k9s output into a pipe or variable but I can with kubectl.

Would be nice if we could have the cake and eat it here. Can TUI frameworks encourage having it both ways?

I like it! I really like that the lines stick to the boxes but it's a bit hard to make them stick.

I mean I can prove with a zero-knowledge-proof that have solved a Sudoku puzzle without actually giving away the solution so this seems possible?

What about Zero-Knowledge Identity? Use zero knowledge proofs to prove that I have an eID without actually providing my identity.

EFF has a good write-up about zero-knowledge: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/zero-knowledge-proofs-...

> What ZKPs don’t do is mitigate verifier abuse or limit their requests, such as over-asking for information they don’t need or limiting the number of times they request your age over time. They don’t prevent websites or applications from collecting other kinds of observable personally identifiable information like your IP address or other device information while interacting with them.

The arguments they make is a good example of "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good".

If we allow incumbents to make photo age verification and upload of ID to third-parties to be the solution, we will have a much worse solution.

Exactly. And I do think that a world where zkp ids are taken for granted is one where the issues they point to will be more surmountable than today.

Interesting. While that is true I don't see how it's an argument against. Over-asking + ZKP certainly seems superior to over-asking + without ZKP. Without ZKP in a world where you constantly need to identify yourself you have absolutely no privacy.

And going forward I think that any communication without establishing some kind of trust boundary will just be noise.

Something like a cert chain, but it would need to be both simple to use and secure. Those two requirements are greatly at odds with each other.

Yeah one reason I think the government has to offer this is usability. While you can imagine a purely p2p protocol between cypherpunks, for everyone else there needs to be a way to social workers, DMV staff, etc can deal with edge cases (such as your id being stolen and needing a reset). Furthermore it helps if it's super illegal to tamper with this network (consider how rare check fraud is, despite being easy).

Check fraud is easy to commit but not easy to get away with while also benefiting financially.

It's also illegal to steal things but that happens much more frequently because it's often fairly easy to get away with.

Yes that's the idea, once you have the soul-bound eID the ZK part is trivial, but the eID with the guarantees I outlined is not at all trivial.

I believe we can solve both anonymity + proof-of-humanity using zero-knowledge proofs that act as intermediary between a trusted identity provider and the service provider. I.e. you get a digital id but you use it to generate proofs rather than handing out your identity.

Right?

Related: https://www.proofofpersonhood.how/

The algorithm used here is ring verifiable random functions, which only provides plausible deniability, nothing more.

Proof of personhood would require proof that every entity in the ring was an actual person.

> PoP makes it possible to prove "I am unique" without giving up privacy.

Ah, very nice! I have been trying to figure out if this was possible!

Is that even feasible? Thinking of it like security certificates for humans. Can there really be anonymity if a cert signature chain has to be trusted? CAs and intermediaries can always trace certs back?

And who is going to be a trusted identity provider in authoritarian regimes?

Yeah, I mean that is definitely an additional hard nut to crack.

I also think it has potential (partial) solutions. I'm thinking that there are many ways to prove identity information. You could use something like tlsnotary to prove that you can log in to a certain web page (i.e. you are an employee of corp X). You can prove that you know someone that know person Y given certain encrypted data.

I just think that Zero-knowledge-proofs are very under explored. As I understand it, and I am not an expert - more or less anything that can be proven algorithmically can be turned into a zkp. Any question that algorithmically can have a yes or no answer can also avoid leaking further information if handled in a zkp way.

I just learned like a few basic examples of zkp and I realized that so many proofs can be made this way.

Maybe the solution is to accept that anonymity comes with the trade-off that bots will also participate. The dependency then is on effective moderation.

Perhaps effective moderation is achievable today through, dare I say it - bots? They certainly seem capable of it now, perhaps more effectively than the average human?

It needs to be globally distributed and not tied to any one government. Worldcoin but not Worldcoin.

Either that or a protocol that is as reusable as email that can facilitate a variety of identity proof and trust mechanisms.

AIs in bunkers rigged to explode.

Ultimately it all comes back to the collective action problem doesn't it?

I believe that is solvable.

> There is also the need for real estate in areas with good sun exposure that also have sufficient fresh water supply for cleaning.

Solar panels are 20x more efficient than growing corn for ethanol. Swap out some of those 30 million acres of ethanol corn fields (in the US) and you'll have more energy than you need.

More details here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

Utility scale PV farms should be seen as literally harvesting solar power, not generating it, while still allowing other agriculture like sheep grazing to occur using the same fields.

You plant a PV panel and add its irrigation (power interconnect) and remote monitoring, then you harvest power for the next 25+ years.

Ethanol production excess is a specific US problem because of the misalignment of incentives and lobbying.

I’m all for it — converting just a third of that land to solar would be enough to power the grid in terms of raw output — but there is still a huge, unsolved problem of energy storage that scale. Without that you’re only powering your data center for five hours a day.

I've used pre-commit very sparingly but it has happened and I also have no idea why this project need to exist? Why would pre-commit ever lead to performance problems? I get that the processes that are hooked in can be long running but the pre-commit itself? Why would it take any time at all?

It sounds like at least some of the problems pointed at would be mitigated by using fzf. At least it has greatly improved my terminal ux.

Well Shadcn gives you more freedom to fix stuff like this and rewrite how you want the component to work and look, since everything lives in your own code base. In a regular component lib it would be less likely that you'd think about this complexity, since it would be "hidden" away in node_modules or even transpiled and minified.

> everything lives in your own code base

A common misconception.

In reality Shadcn is a thin wrapper around libraries such as Radix, recharts, etc. The article says as much.

Sure, but if you wanted to change it to just use a radio input you could. Shadcn gives you a baseline.

native radio buttons gives you a baseline.

You can only call Shadcn a "baseline" if it was a baseline of the last floor of the babel tower of abstractions.

Sure, that's true. I oversimplified.

I still don't understand why someone would choose to essentially clone some code vs import a library. Suddenly you increase your maintenance burden, lose updates, etc. I've had no problems at all with UI libraries like Mantine. If you follow this logic, why not just clone all your npm repos and build from source. Ultimate control, right? Please help me understand the benefits here, because I tried out shadcn and wasn't into it

It's for projects that are design-first, where you'll have to implement your own component library that matches the design.