It would also probably be less costly than starting a legal fight over license violations.

You raise some legitimate points about file format compatibility.

Do you have any particular feelings about Euro-Office or potential license violations? So far you haven't engaged with the summary at all. Otherwise this move would/should be happening anyway. MS and Google can both be a huge pita no matter who is President, and freeing yourself from their grip should be seen as a desirable move no matter where you live.

Just a guess but it seems like the Euro-Office team is keen on violating a license or two, and perhaps they found it easier/simpler to violate the OnlyOffice license.

It's actually not a bad idea. Centralized databases are prone to security breaches. Having your credentials in an encrypted ipfs store somewhere could be more secure if it's only accessible through a token on a blockchain.

That being said, there's no way anyone knows what you've actually put on the ipfs store if the entire contents aren't being exposed during the age check. You could put any old ID you wanted in there.

That or the DoD is paying better than Sora ever would.

Madoff lasted maybe 25 years before his operation collapsed in 2008. Bitcoin has lasted 17. Think it'll make it for another decade?

There are other reasons to ship recent versions.

They seem particularly unreliable when asked to tell the difference between a headmaster and a fundamental rule.

Translation: we don't currently have a quantum algorithm for reversing hashes. But there was a time, not that long ago, when we didn't have a quantum algo for factorization either. However, I don't expect to see a quantum algo for hash reversion any time soon, because the whole problem of reversing hashes is pretty complex.

Factorization as a classical problem is essentially trivial, in that there are very simple classical algorithms for it. They just take a lot of time to run. But coming up with an efficient quantum algorithm was not trivial, and the algorithm itself isn't so simple. So you can estimate that a quantum version of any algorithm is a lot more complex than the classical counterpart.

I've only taken fairly general master's level courses in quantum information and regular cryptography, but I agree with this overall sentiment. My math professors used to say that no asymmetric encryption scheme has been proved unbreakable; we only know if they haven't been broken so far. Assuming something is unbreakable is like saying Fermat's last theorem is unprovable — until one day it's proved. So to me "post quantum cryptography" is essentially a buzzword.

Interestingly, Finnish government was planning to move election systems to Amazon's cloud, but the plan was just recently cancelled due to public outcry. https://www.heise.de/en/news/F...

OpenAI has struggled to drive revenue. Any cash generation on their books is going to be seen as newsworthy. It's probably not enough to cover their expenses, but it may be enough for them to increase their debt exposure or attract more investors.

That about Google is bollocks for a start...they just can't win in China so they choose not to be there. They took their toys home.

China doesn't use the same systems as in the US, but they do have a process to go through.

It turns out the USA isn't so different, actually...but Google et al seem happy enough to be there.

For now.