Even if you can not compute the result in a finite number of steps through the naive approach there could still be a better approach, let me call it shortcut, for determining the value that can be computed. E.g. the geometric series result is known (a/(1-r)) but not computable through evaluating the series itself. A problem is undecidable if you can prove that the shortcut can not exist, it is decidable if you know a shortcut exists (knowing the formula is not required), and potentially either decidable or undecidable if a proof in either direction is unknown.
While it technically correct to say this it also gets the wrong point across because it leaves out the fact that ordering changes create only a small difference. Other examples where arithmetic is not commutative, e.g.
matrix multiplication , can create much larger differences.
Obviously this is not how video compression and packets work but for the sake of the argument consider the following. The article speaks of a 300 fiber cable. A one bit per pixel square image with approx. 300 pixels is 17x17 in size. Not your typical video resolution.
Optics also have signal integrity issues. In practice OSNR and SNR limit optics. Cutting the fiber still breaks it. Small vibrations also affect the signal's phase.
No, not necessarily. If you can distinguish different amplitude levels you can do better. For example four amplitude modulation (4AM) carries two bits per symbol. There is also the option to use coherent optics, which can detect phase, and carry additional information in the phase.
Algorithms can see the difference between RGB 245, 245, 245 and RGB 246, 245, 245 (it's 1, 0, 0) but the eye can probably not, also depending on the monitor hardware. Thus the blurring effect might not be as strong as it looks like at first glance.
Clicking on links in emails is a security risk because they could be spam. I don't do that unless it's the only way to move forward and then I double check the url. Basically I only use it to sign up then never again if possible.
I can tell you right now without any research that video game designers reuse interface patterns and game mechanics that were already known when making new games. Those patterns and mechanics are also often analogies for real life allowing humans to intuitively play the games. If people can't play your game intuitively, they might say it's a bad game.
Feeding someone who is hungry or not feeding them when they cannot provide for themselves is a moral question. You can demand that parents provide for their kids but some don't.
I don't claim to have a lot of experience on this but my intuition tells me that a connection that ends after the request needs to be reopened for the next request. What is more efficient, keeping the session open or closing it, depends on the usage pattern, how much memory does the session consume, etc. etc.
Tbh I don't understand the need for games in web assembly. Is it really worth the effort developing an environment for games that runs in the Webbrowser when installing a game through steam or the play store is already very simple and quick
I agree. There should be a process in place for checking if changes are ready to be rolled out, and one of the checks should be a working prototype implementation, that is open source, that shows that running your systems can still be managed.
I never said I had a desire to be more centralised. I just said that static IPs and open ports remove the necessity for hole punching/STUN. You can have multiple sites without a central and all use static IPs and open ports.
Also DERP relays having QOS that isn't controlled by myself and I have to hope to get bandwidth through doesn't exactly make me confident about the solution
Why is that smart? I signed up for a Microsoft Account with my email and I can use Microsoft Account to log in to Tail scale but I can't use the email directly? How does the middle man bring anything to the table?
The clean way to build this is with firewall configuration, opening ports, and static IPs. NAT/STUN and dynamic IPs are just a hack and I don't understand why people pretend this is an acceptable solution for professional networking. Working around an infrastructure that isn't a natural law but can be changed at our will seems like a big waste of time.