None of those were the result of mergers.
3,100 karma · joined December 1, 2014
If consumers get value from roads they should pay. Consumer road damage is certainly measurable, since plenty of roads disallow heavy trucks.
It’s silly to claim because one can see a billboard that the billboard would subsidize the value a consumer derives from roads. Putting up a billboard didn’t cause consumer utility of having a road to become zero. And private property owners are generally free to put up plenty of things, billboards included, without this odd request they subsidize others that look onto their property.
And I don’t know many, if any, examples of people received as crackpots that later were considered genius. At worst genius takes a little time to be recognized, which is a situation far more common.
You claimed "No I'm not conflating them, I see the NYPD tags on the map flying directly over Brooklyn to their helicopter base 5+ times a day. [0]", as if this proved your point.
I posted a demonstrable source for those 5+ tags, which can be double checked by looking at NYPD flight logs. You realize there are public flight logs, right?
Now you'll tell us the secret magic helicopters are not logged and these tags are not from the drones, or yet another round of disprovable angry claims.
Instead of misunderstanding things, assuming it supports your preconceived beliefs, then making further unwarranted assumptions about others to reinforce your misguided world view, simply google to see if those tags are helicopters.
Don’t project your incorrect beliefs onto others.
[1] https://www.skydio.com/blog/faa-issues-revolutionary-approva...
John von Neumann generated a prodigious amount of math specifically to meet demand, on demand, under govt contracts, world changing things. Some of it was fundamental in getting computers into use.
Newton (and Leibniz) invented calculus to address current astronomical problems, a contemporary demand.
Fourier invented Fourier series to meet the demand of engineering heat flow.
Heisenberg, Dirac, Born, etc. invented the formalisms of quantum mechanics specifically to meet the demand of experimental methods.
Many of these were paid by contemporaneous need to solve significant commercial value problems.
Theres tons of counter examples to your claim. So much so it’s hard to believe you’d make such a claim.
Read my post above. It’s trivial to ask Google if these are the same, and they’re not.
A hash is as secure as the entropy used to make it. That entropy is the sum of the entropy sources, if they do not share information. If they do, and you can accurately model the partials, then you can compute how much entropy is in the result. Using the entropy from a pool reduces it, and over time the input sources are analyzed to know if there’s enough in the pool to perform a requested operation.
Has no one in this tread actually learned basic information theory at the level of Cover?
> This is superstitious nonsense….
You are confusing entropy with complexity. Simply google “ what is the difference between entropy and complexity in cryptography” and it clearly shows you’re confused.
Entropy is the unpredictability in a source of information. How hard it is to exhaust a space by attack is complexity. These are fundamentally different concepts in both information theory and cryptography.
So I wouldn’t claim this is a hard and fast rule. Lots of mcu lines have added mmus on some variants.
Secure is not a binary state; not understanding basic information theory and how entropy evolves is fatal.
This right here shows 100% why no one should trust you or your code. You have a seriously fundamental misunderstanding of entropy or what the Bernstein blog post (and it is a blog post, even if it’s Bernstein) states.
His post states, correctly, that a hash is as secure as its weakest entropy source. Adding more bad ones does not strengthen it. He doesn’t say you can ignore the entropy per source, and simply hope one “is secure,” whatever the heck that even means.
Entropy of a source is a number, often in units of bits/sec (or nats or Harley’s or some rate for differential entropy). It’s most definitely doesn’t even make sense to say “one is secure”. That’s a nonsensical phrase.
If you do not correctly know the entropy bit rate of all your inputs, and very importantly cross correlations, you cannot know if you have enough entropy accumulated for an operation, which is then used up; you cannot make downstream claims about security. That you’re so incredibly lax and naive and state the opposite of reality shows the lack of crypto skill. This type of misunderstanding is why there’s still groups hiring people like me to break systems: tons are implemented very poorly, leave holes from poor entropy, timing attacks, power attacks, glitch attacks, etc. depending on the system.
The very least anyone designing such things should know about information theory is a solid understanding of the book by Cover, then stack on top significant knowledge about the physical systems used under the software and have detailed models for them.
This is why people should be skeptical about this stack.
You’re correct about black and white thinking. Then you invoke multiple straw men in this thread to defend that you’ll roll your own.
Disclaimer: I’ve been hired for multiple DoD projects to break hardware and software security systems, and I nearly always succeed, because so many people (and companies) roll their own.
It’s also poor reasoning to you only pick one thing you think supports your view, and ignore vastly more things not supporting it, all from the same useful criteria.
Now if only you’d carefully read the report you chose, and spend equal time looking at ample presented evidence, you’d develop a more accurate understanding.
If you look over all such lawsuits, they extremely rarely succeed.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C23&q=llm...
And plenty of things, eventually solvable, can create major problems that could both be avoided and the problem solved by taking a much better path.
Having technology and the ability to safely and sanely use the technology needs to progress together at a similar rate. The failure to do this is even a reasonable and common solution to the Great Filter. Jared Diamonds book “Collapse” has ample examples of cultures that wiped themselves completely out via not having this balance, so it’s not simply a theory.
If you don’t see the first as a not honest, misleading restatement of the latter, then we think fundamentally differently about accurate statements.
Then, if you care to learn, there are extremely high quality, lkely far beyond old software like libjpeg-turbo, use in DoD projects, satellites, medical imaging systems, commercial cameras systems, and plenty of companies that sell such chips and IP to embed in ones own ASIC. There is zero technical problem taking an opensource project, turning that exact code into an ASIC or VHDL one can put into any ASIC, an so the best ideas are reused in hardware all the time.
Alma Technologies, CAST, intoPIX all sell such cores that are integrated throughout the industry, embedded everywhere, and can be bought with an ever improving host of features.
That's a Newtonian approximation. Under General Relativity it is not true - the possible solutions are time varying, and I'm not even sure there are periodic orbits, nor even stable orbits. All N-body patterns radiate gravitational energy till the system collapses. I'm pretty sure there are no general closed form solution, and I think it's true there is not even a single case where the path is a closed form solution.
Pretty much any platform with a hardware jpeg encoder beats libjpegturbo. So probably all smart phones, large scale CPUs, even tiny few $ microcontrollers like ESP32's have hardware encode/decode that outperforms libjpegturbo.
Not linearized as in samples do not represent linear color space? I think that's untrue, as all sensor work I've done (a decent amount across many projects) are linear: double light = double photon count = 1 bit of sensor space. There are technically often some bends from physical and engineering effects (photon interaction with substrate has some variability, temperature affects things a bit).
Or is there some other meaning of "not linear" you mean?
Games released is not indicative of revenues: 80% of steam games make < $5k, and median steam game makes at most a few hundred $. So that doesn't really tell much about sales.
Recent data seems available in reports from Newzoo: their The PC & Console Gaming Report 2025 states there was 1.2% total PC growth 2021-2024 in nominal dollars (40.5B to $40-42B). In real dollars that is around -15%, so enough shrinkage that many industries would really feel the pain. In smaller sections, their 2014, 2017, 2024 reports show PC share of global games spend fell 17%. They (and SuperData) data show premium PC fell a few percent (nominal, more in real $). Playtime per player fell 26% (Newzoo 2024, 2025).
Also, around 50-60% of revenue, which is nice, is not new game sales, but microtransactions, and these are extremely weighted to the largest few games. Of the remaining, around 10-15% is subscription fees, also not new sales.
Using Steam as a proxy for the whole industry hides losses if more title % moved to Steam, since then the numbers you posted are not comparing like to like.
Some Newzoo data is easily found, use AI to find copies of their closed reports floating around the internet.
You can say Luddites were not only opposed to machines they thought cost them (which was the main reason they started the trouble they did at that point), but they also (insert labor practices).
Read their writings or contemporary reports. The wiki page has ample references to good material.
In the sense they were not opposed to all machines as a concept. They were definitely against machines they thought reduced their labor value:
"They wrecked specific types of machinery that posed a threat to the particular industrial interests in each region. In the Midlands, these were the "wide" knitting frames used to make cheap and inferior lace articles.[22] In the North West, weavers sought to eliminate the steam-powered looms threatening wages in the cotton trade. In Yorkshire, workers opposed the use of shearing frames and gig mills to finish woollen cloth.[23]"
Citations in
No matter how you count it, PC gaming has been in decline for a long time.