It could even be a path to LLMs without hallucination. A resurgence for Symbolic AI.

Scroll 1 does not meet that goal, but Scroll 2 will. Looks the same, but under the hood has some really interesting designs related to topological sorting, causality, and logic that I think will be highly useful and relevant for science and all that want to built trustworthy information.

My vision, which I think now more than ever is possible, has been to "build a language for scientists of all ages".

I've meant that in both the sense of "a language so easy kids can use it" to "a language so compelling Planck and Einstein and Feynman would have used it".

It's a pain to replace a parser engine but I think it will be well worth it.

People are dying from bad information, and you're doing paywalls.

Why would it ever not be open access? How are your funders okay with your work being put behind a paywall?

Are you recieving any taxpayer dollars?

Do better.

Yes I think top 3% income bracket is a lot of money and people shouldn't talk about LE as a "non-profit". The avg non-profit salary is $39K.

I use it on ScrollHub, which is open source and public domain and you can run on your own server (and use all the LE code I write). LE requires so much more engineering effort than it needs.

I'm not asking for much. 365 days. A 1 byte change lots of people ask for

github.com/breck7/Scrol...

Again, they can change 1 byte. But they won't. I could not understand that. Their technical argument for it is weak. Then I see they're banking a quarter mil a year writing bash scripts and I get it--they want 4x the traffic.

I can certainly keep my mouth shut and not complain about a retarded engineering decision, but that only hurts all the other users who have been complaining about this and who automation is more of a pain.

And then also, you hit LE rate limits very quick and they lecture you even more.

You have never experienced LE rate limits

They could 4x capacity by simply allowing 365 days, which most people want for most use cases.

Again, if certs are being compromised so frequently that you can only trust them for 90 days, we have a much bigger problem.

I'm not against 90 day certs. If you want 90 days, sure! Just give the people what they are clearly asking for, a 365 day option (since they wrote a whole blog post saying people often ask them for 365 days).

Wait so they only provide services to those who give it money? Why aren't they paying taxes then, because that sounds like a for-profit.

Tell me you haven't experienced LetsEncrypts crazy low rate limits without telling me.

Imagine defending this "non-profit"