> However, I disagree with some of the analysis, and have a couple specific points to correct.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Alright I'm back from my tea break. But I have a confession for you.

I made hot chocolate instead.

But we are going to get into the second part of the unnecessarily thorough "decentralization" terminology deep dive I'm doing here in just a moment

[cwebber@social.coop]

Before we get into that it's also getting pretty late here and I have another confession to make to you, I was pretty hungry, so you know what I did? I stood in the kitchen and I ate hummus in the kitchen with a spoon over the sink

You have found Secret Goblin #2, judging me for my hummus shame

[viv@snoot.tube]

@cwebber goblin up the hummus

[cwebber@social.coop]

When we last left off I was peeling back layers of the terminology onion and we have gotten to the inner layer (maybe it goes deeper, I guess terminology usually does but this is as far as we go)

It is time to examine "decentralization" in Baran 1964

Because I am being UNNECESSARILY thorough

[cwebber@social.coop]

So here is Paul Baran's "literally the most influential paper to affect networking systems ever" 1964 paper:

"On Distributed Communications: I. Introduction to Distributed Communication Networks" https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM3420.html

It's good, it's amazing, it's INCREDIBLY visionary

[cwebber@social.coop]

So okay yeah it's very military-oriented but... but! The context for this paper is that Paul Baran is arguing for what eventually *becomes* networking as we know it. Baran says: let's use *cheap* equipment with *way less centralization that we've ever seen* and it'll be *better actually!*

[cwebber@social.coop]

And just imagine the *gall* of it: telling the *military* let alone the world oh you know how you love hierarchy? Well guess what, you know what's WAY better, something that's closer to cooperative anarchy, where there's a lot of cooperation lots of error-prone little guys

AND HE WAS RIGHT

[cwebber@social.coop]

Baran comes in with the math to back up his claims, a vision of how basically wifi and satellite and land lines and cable internet would all work together before we even *had* any internet stuff, shows how a packet would look, and says if you want to REALLY be tough, be... "distributed"

[cwebber@social.coop]

Hm, did you notice I said "distributed" and not "decentralized"?

Actually wait... does this sound familiar, have you heard of this paper before?

Could it be? No... it couldn't be...

[unixbigot@aus.social]

@cwebber @spritely Fighter planes don’t even NEED two wings. Why isn’t the war insurance senate committee denying these unnecessary claims?

The full story of the F-15 pilot who landed with one wing

Believe it or not, the legendary F-15 Eagle once landed with only one wing after a mid-flight collision tore the other one off.

Sandboxx (www.sandboxx.us)

[cwebber@social.coop]

And yes of course it is literally the paper that gives us this incredible FIGURE 1, which you have CERTAINLY seen if you have ever heard ANYONE talk about ANY "decentralized" or "distributed" system ever

CENTRALIZED DECENTRALIZED DISTRIBUTED

You know this image. You could never forget this image

[viq@social.hackerspace.pl]

@cwebber Second Secret Goblin doesn't judge, only nudges you to share hummus

[cwebber@social.coop]

One of the reasons you know this image is that everyone worth their salt who works on decentralized networks thinks about this image and puts it in their talks

But also so does this bro who has literally no idea about how tech works but thinks he does

So one way or another you're gonna see it

(tech bro courtesy https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/job-interviews)

[cwebber@social.coop]

That comic is from Three Panel Soul btw, and here's the link https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/job-interviews

All of Three Panel Soul is good, but the Tech Bro ones are my favorites https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/search/Tech%20Bro

I love Three Panel Soul so much

(Gonna weird out @3psboyd by fangirling over here)

*COUGH* where was I

[cwebber@social.coop]

"Christine if you love this paper so much why don't you like the definition of 'decentralized' from it?!"

The definition is great actually if you know the context

Because the context is CRITICIZING THE DESIGN UNDER THE DEFINITION AS A FORM OF CENTRALIZATION

[cwebber@social.coop]

"What Christine you can't mean that, why would 'decentralized' be 'centralized' that can't be true"

Because because BECAUSE my good friend, Baran was describing "decentralization", a term that ALREADY EXISTED in networking, as being a kind of centralized system

NO REALLY I AM SERIOUS

[cwebber@social.coop]

The term "decentralized" was *already* in active use! So Baran was providing "distributed" as the new term! Oh my god THAT'S WHY THE DEFINITION BARAN PROVIDED FOR DECENTRALIZATION WAS SO WEAK

You don't believe me? Let me show you. LET ME SHOW YOU

[cwebber@social.coop]

Here is where Baran defines "decentralization!" We have to read the whole definition!
You're not allowed to stop until we finish EVERY (cotd) let's GOOOO

> The centralized network is obviously vulnerable as destruction of a single central node destroys communication between the end station.

(cotd)

[jsbarretto@social.coop]

@cwebber It is the middle of the night and I am worried that reading this post in my head is going to wake my dog

[cwebber@social.coop]

Baran "decentralization" cotd:

> In practice, a mixture of star and mesh components is used to form communication networks.

IN PRACTICE FOR CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS YOU GUYS

(cotd)