Late reply, but I looked at that linked and tried it out. The calendar is only for a personal calendar. It doesn't allow you to send out invites.
1,675 karma · joined March 31, 2015
> Consequently, there are actually two ways to encode xor eax, eax:
; r/m32, r
31 C0
; r, r/m32
33 C0
The XOR algorithm remains unchanged and remains commutative. The execution routine of the XOR is noncommutative.
So, there are two operations here: XOR and executeXOR and OPs article is about using the machine level noncommutativity in the form of different byte strings for executeXOR. The machine still thinks that is is commutative for the end result of the calculation/routine.
My comment about cypher XOR plaintext = cyphertext is just a general comment about XOR.
Steganography is like a magician's act; it's only undetected if you don't go and look for it. I think, in principle, if you are the only one using the tool, and didn't tell anyone, why would anyone look for it?
But I think what you are doing is pretty cool! I don't know much about machine code, but whenever XOR becomes noncommutative, for whatever reason, but executes commutatively, then this should become possible.
Of course, by the way, XOR also has the vanilla ability to reveal information through: plaintext XOR cypher = cyphertext and then you do cyphertext XOR cypher to get back plaintext. In this case, XOR is commutative, as we are only looking at execution, and moreover each binary string is it's own inverse: thing XOR thing = 0-string. So, you can think of XOR as reversible sequences of encypherment.
Everything else is to me a matter of compression. Netflix's success seemed to me 50% good marketing and content and 50% compression and data handling.
It is wrong to think that a webpage has some sort of canonical view on it. And FB, Twitter and even Forbes is all about generating the impression of group perspective being one thing as opposed to be views on one, perhaps elusive, thing.
> Dunno about the rest of the world.
If you are poor, then money is the means to have the necessary things for survival.
My opinion is that materialism is something separate from money, but it is often induced by desire for more money.
The only main problem to me with the way money works is that value generation != money generation. So, what I mean is that if you plant food, it doesn't mean that money necessarily exists. And hence money != labour * scarcity if there isn't a way to introduce the money in the first place. This observation is mostly for third world countries, where you have scarce things and a lot of labour, but you don't necessarily have money. The USA suddenly becomes much nicer in your world view when one realises that for the most part money = scarcity * labour does hold there.
Anyway, I would say, don't worry about the USA too much. I don't think the issues you are feeling are due to economic theories, I think it's more due to social circumstances. Culture is something you can build for yourself, you don't have to worry about the rest of your fellow countrymen.
Maybe they mean that most security providers didn't see it coming. Some people would think that the NSA are part of the set of security providers and hence, in a way, it's not that you don't see something coming, it's simply that you don't see them as the aggressor.
If you change from the topic of "computer security" to "nuclear weapons" then perhaps you can see how intelligence gathering, obfuscation and subterfuge is perhaps not an inherently offensive thing. For nuclear weapons, I think the only objective is to prevent nuclear explosions. Some people think the US's role is to stop nuclear war; some people think the US is part of the problem.
My personal take on the topic is that Snowden's main role was to challenge the idea that the NSA is keeping the peace.
> Work on the bloody browser, forget about the rest.
There is also this:
> As of today, the Thunderbird project will be operating from a new wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, MZLA Technologies Corporation. [1] (January 28th 2020)
I think that proper email and calendar is what people need too. It's a big market and something you would more obviously pay for than a browser. Protonmail doesn't have a good calendar; Google doesn't have good privacy.
[1] https://blog.thunderbird.net/2020/01/thunderbirds-new-home/
1) register domain
2) don't renew
Not completely unrelated either, since it seems like OP's domain is now bust too...
What is also interesting is that probably half of what FB or <insert nonexistant competitor> does is moderation of sorts. This is why FB is becoming a commerce/community page website and why they need Instagram for social media.
Isn't this language used in the Eurofighter Typhoon?
By the way:
> The question begs itself
Rather: This invites the question.
Begging the question is assuming the conclusion in a circular argument. [1]
> Integer multiplication in time O(n log n)
Many people may no realise this, but this exactly holds for African countries too. As the continent develops, some countries will become certain roleplayers that essentially are already apparent now, for those willing to go and look for it.
South Africa is the financial capital of Africa, and it would do most people here good to emphasise that. It is an entry point into the rest of Africa (despite, or because of even, being the furthest away from Europe) and its long term trajectory is probably going to remain in what I guess we could call facilitation.
If we compare SA to Ireland or Switzerland, again, they are countries that attempt to facilitate development. I think tax needs to be a topic in its own right, and the exact properties of a country is also a topic in its own right.
Luxembourg will always be forced into a niche, and whether that niche is tax based on not depends on the options at their disposal. Wealthy people see tax as an expense just like any other and the onus is on ordinary people to build inherent value rather than simply financial value.
But you need cultural momentum for this. South Africa's niche role is compounded by cultural and African factors and I am first in line of those that want a foundational based economy, rather than a facilitation based one. But you really need the will to work hard and build inherent value. My final point is simply that one can complain about countries that focus on tax (or tax evation) but the real question is: What else are the options. (And I'm sure there are opportunities waiting.)
Just using a graph was the highlight of that month for me. (The data wasn't already in a graph.) Reading the wiki, it may have been Dijkstra that I used under the hood. (I just wanted the sum of simple paths for all leaves to the root, for each leaf.)
Cheers for us.
Art connects us with history. If we don't have a conscious stream going back to the Greek mathematicians such as Archimedes and Erastosthenes, how do we know they existed? In this case we actually don't have a nice conscious stream because of a little event called the fall of Rome and the dark ages. But the artifacts are as real a connection to early history as my school books with my writing are to my own early history, or yours.
Anything connecting us directly to the Renaissance is inherently valuable, as is the Romantic era, or early industrial history. I value van Gogh for it's place in history, and for the fact that anything in the painting has to be from that date. If you do some kind of verification, you should see that the green pigment has to be the one that they used at that time, and may possibly look a bit faded to a more yellowy colour. Red pigment will probably be somewhat poisonous and blue may well be from a particular plant with a particular name. (IANAAH.)
Going to the Renaissance is of course more complicated than going to van Gogh, going to the dark ages is more so, and even more so going back to Greece. The same holds for any civilisations such as the Maya, ancient China, Mesopotamia, and so forth. We are connected to the San only through very few artifacts and often they are too generic to know. We are but limited to paintings on overhanging rock faces.
The money value is another argument, but if I had the money, I would buy a piece of history for $1m in the same way that I would buy a Fazioli or a Bosendorfer (the one with the octave lower, of course) for some $200k, new or old.
The principle is that you use things like assets, employees, IP, sales, factory output, sales, etc. to calculate your expected share price and if you check the actual share price and find it to be greatly undervalued, you would buy up a somewhat significant part of the business. I assume this also allows you to have some kind of say in the future of the business and I assume that you would prefer it if the company were not that large yet.
It would be interesting to hear what a young Warren Buffet would have had to say (since the old one does actually tell us what he has to say).
This comment is based on my experience on the African continent. Nokia seemed to come out of nothing, beat everyone and then go back to being nothing.
In reality, they are more than 100 years old, started in the timber industry and now moved to telecom infrastructure rather than handsets.
If I mention the name "Nokia" then people will look at me blankly if they are younger than 20 but otherwise say: "Oh the great 3310!". So, the expectation was that there would be ghost towns.
It's amazing when people that you have never met (I am not from Europe and haven't visited Finland) can think in the same way you do.
I have to add that I am a happy pessimist. I like to tell people how everything is a futile waste of time, but wait! It is a happy and possibly satisfying, innovating, discovering, enjoyable waste of time.
My conclusions about them are this:
1. They can become a major player in 5G for Europe.
2. The places in Finland where they operated did not become ghost towns as you may have thought.
3. They are still very competent. In fact, when their mobile business was bought out by Microsoft, it appears that they were a leader in car navigation systems. Not sure if MS considered that when doing the takeover and not sure whether they took it over.
4. They have always been a telecom infrastructure player and become more so after the 2010–2012 fiasco. They were working on Linux derived OSs for phones. I always thought they tanked due to their marriage to Symbian and ignorance towards Android. I am not sure anymore; I have become more old school and like people that write their own code.
5. The Finns seem to blame hubris for their downfall. I think even without hubris, you can't really compete against countries with a lot of people and low wages.
6. Finland remains an awesome country. Their engineers are probably better than Germans, but they are 1/10th in number. (Sorry, I like to take on the Germans in a challenge. Maybe it's because they are actually something to take on?)
Maxwell 1 + 2: Field per surface area. The asymmetry between magnetic fields and electrical fields is that magnetic ones have a total field of zero; that is, al magnetic lines loop back on themselves.
Maxwell 3: The principle behind power generating turbines.
Maxwell 4: The principle behind electrical motors.
To be honest, I didn't even know you can condense it into four equations. I was only exposed to the history of electromagnetism, not the latest expression thereof.
And similarly to Orwell's book, it seems like Street Fighting Mathematics does actually have interesting content, despite whatever the reason may be that they need an "antidote" for general mathematics.
Immanuel Kant wrote about it [1] and many engineers have a varying degree of animosity towards pure mathematics. So, in the book's description they say this:
This engaging book is an antidote to the rigor mortis brought on by too much mathematical rigor, teaching us how to guess answers without needing a proof or an exact calculation.
I don't like the advertising, or the description if you will, as it basically tries to discount rigour. One can simply say it's an addition to the usual rigour of mathematics for the sake of daily street fighting style problem solving. The way they state it, however, it sounds like they are saying that rigorous math is not necessary.
My reference to George Orwell is simply that when he wrote Keep the Aspidistra Flying his publishers made him write a lot of things he didn't want to write, and they even specified the amount of words the books needed to have (which is is somewhat understandable, but limiting still).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason. However, note that this is about metaphysics and one can argue that pure mathematics is not what he was critisising and that his work doesn't directly try to disprove the use of axioms, without which mathematics cannot exist.
But even Keep the Aspidistra Flying was basically mutilated by circumstance [1] and it's still a great book. So, I'll take the insults towards mathematicians with humour and actually read some of it—I often switch between grumpy rigour to applicative speed. We all need to earn an income.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_the_Aspidistra_Flying#Lit...
Edit: Just to be clear, my comment on mathematicians is not on your quote, but this quote from OP's post:
> an antidote to mathematical rigor mortis
Yup, if you play Sacred Gold or Disciples II using open frameworks you get a game that looks much newer. But more importantly, perpetually playable.
Disciples II has an edit that uses OpenGL that makes the game much faster and more playable, and gives widescreen.
Sacred has numerous mods, such as giving 1080p HD (and more).
The next question is going to be: "But why do you play those games?" To this I will ask, honestly, what is Fortnight anyway?