protoman3000

> The problem you quickly run into to build this design is that Linux kernel WireGuard doesn’t have a feature for installing peers on demand.

I don't seem to understand. You can add peers at runtime, e.g.

https://serverfault.com/questions/1101002/wireguard-client-a...

Can somebody clarify?

EDIT: If I understand correctly, that step is already too late. They want to authenticate a peer before adding it to the interface in order to prevent stale entries on the interface.

They thus put a eBPF filter in front of the interface and do the cryptokey-routing based association to an authorized counterpart by themselves. If it checks out, then they add the peer to the interface and remove it after a timeout.

How come applications from such big players are not completely obfuscated and have all kinds of other protections in them to e.g. deny modified binaries from running?

I would like to ask a question and add before that that I have no intent to judge, discredit or diminish the value of this. It’s merely that I really don’t understand and would like to gain insight.

The question is: How is this a scientific contribution?

Or, to ask it differently: What makes this a scientific contribution?

Hi,

thanks for your comment. Your story touched me immediately in my heart.

I can recommend you this book on your quest to get more insights and ideas for healing:

"Healing Developmental Trauma: How Early Trauma Affects Self-Regulation, Self-Image, and the Capacity for Relationship" from Laurence Heller, PhD

I’m sorry for your situation.

Having gone myself as a 5 year old sibling through something like this I wish to stress this:

Don’t let your other children become chronically mentally ill, send them to the psychotherapist and counselor and do that for years. You can’t imagine the amount of suffering they will have untreated. This is not something that you can just outlive and your children are dependent on you supporting them by giving them support from somebody who actually can support them. The scar of this trauma will run many many years, make them extremely vulnerable and can render them with a full blown disability.

You can prevent this. Don’t let other people who have no idea shame you for seeking help for this.

Yes it could. The boss seems to show strong tendencies of narcissism. Narcissists gather so called “flying monkeys” around them which fuel their sense of superiority and they bind them through various techniques to them (until they are also discarded). In this case the narcissist the PowerPoint-mockup people are these flying monkeys, feeding the narcissist all the grandiose ideas and it gives the narcissist a high for going towards that idea - similar how somebody just announcing they will do a hard task, e.g. stop smoking will make somebody feel good immediately before even reaching that goal.

Then, the people to whom the actual task of implementing it was left can’t deliver the grandiose perfectionist idea, and the narcissistic boss can and actually wants to fiercely abuse their power over them in order to feed on the high of superiority and control over them. It’s the perfect position for this kind of person, they can feel high all the time (eventually the tolerance will kick in and the boss must leave though but this can take some time).

Organization-wise it’s a bad boss really. It’s the job of the creatives to come up with great ideas, then the boss should moderate that working together with the feedback from the implementers. Instead the boss is due to personal weakness too suggestible against the creatives and puts the damage of his own making on to the team with bullying.

Wow, that instantly reminds me of Metroid and Mother Brain

I would like to share, that my tinnitus changes its pitch with the rate of breathing and tension on the muscles that help with diaphragm breathing

> Even when users successfully appealed these AI-generated determinations and win, they’re greeted with follow up AI-dictated rejections just days later, starting the process all over again.

Wait, what? Does that mean they can just take your money and reject your request to cover treatment until you die even if you had every right to do so?

> but realistically we don’t even really understand what causes NPD for instance (or BPD)

We actually do have much more insight on this than you might think, it's far from the black box that it used to be. If you look at how the new classification for personality disorders in the ICD11 was developed, they understand that one could for laymen say "Childhood neglect and abuse cause personality disorders".

Of course risk there are many risk factors such as the environment, other traumatizations, epigenetics, temperament, toxins etc. and nobody can expect the common mother to be able to fend for herself and her child against this. But we know with large precision what they are.

And still allow wars to happen.

The de-facto inability to draw boundaries, especially towards people that one perceives to be dependent on, is one of the common symptoms of the large majority of mental health disorders. People have massive difficulties to defend themselves against this kind of workplace abuse, their ability to say “No” is impeded to a point where any reasonable person with understanding of the situation would deem it deeply unjust.

Meanwhile, it is known that people with dark triad personality traits - so people which fall more into the direction of very severe personality disorders such as ASPD or NPD, which have huge internalizing and externalizing costs and damage to society - are due to perverse incentives more often promoted into leading positions, from where they can further cause harm to the sick people below them. But they also get themselves further damaged as their promotions and monetary rewards don’t incentivize them to seek treatment, aggravating their pathology for decades, robbing them of meaningful and healthy lives. Any person with understanding of pathologies of mental health knows that their ability to simply stop abusing others is massively impeded to a point where objectively it appears like a perverse and cruel game to everybody involved.

Both sick-abuser and the sick-abused are the victims in these dynamics and suffer massively.

I hope that we as society will eventually reach a point, where the exploitation of sick people is not normalized anymore. There can be alternatives once we collectively incentivize compassion and empathy, but I dream - even Jesus tried to tell people this and look where we are today.

I'm curious about how the upload to these spacecrafts is secured. We're talking about 1977 technology. What prevents an antisocial troll or adversial state to upload broken firmware?

> The idea of going to a doctor with “procrastination” seems very off in that context.

I understand your sentiment, but how about we call “procrastination” what it is: Consistent and repeated non- or under-functioning.

If the person has tried over years so many things, out of the good and best will to function, participate in society and work culture and still fails, why do you still call it “procrastination”? I guess it must be a cultural thing, especially German, to not give the benefit of doubt and just call a medically relevant condition “Faulheit”. I hope you realize that denying the be benefit of doubt - especially after many years of unsuccessful tries, perpetuates the sickness of people and denies them aid that would help them and make them functional again.

Procrastination can be a symptom of deep and challenging mental health issues, some of which have still huge stigma around them. This stigma makes individuals not seek help where actually needed. So please, work on your stigmatization and be more compassionate so that the person might have a chance to overcome their internalized stigmatization.

I mean, the goal here is to turn people functional again, and not bully them, am I right?

I wouldn't recommend anybody to read these kinds of books and only because they never helped me.

Once I went into the actual clinical literature of many various kinds of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy I saw significant improvement in the way how I live my life and how often procrastination encounters me.

The reason why they helped by gaining a very nuanced understanding of how the mind works. This allowed to identify the patterns from a point of understanding and self-compassion ("Ah, see, this is what they meant with perpetuation").

However, that is not enough. You also need constant awareness of these patterns in order to change them. Something that you learn in Mindfulness courses and train with meditative practices and journaling.

So, if I may present a simple equation: Go to the doctor.

Thanks a lot! Posts like yours are exactly what make this community great.

No, I didn’t and won’t. Hope you can understand it, this is too intimate for me to share on the internet :-)

I have done something similar for another game.

It started as a fun curious idea to understand more about programming and mechanics in games, but became very quickly extremely addictive.

Paired with big personal problems at that time it provided me with an excellent opportunity to escape and basically not leave my home until I was done.

And I regret none of it. I learned much much much more about engineering than I would have ever done otherwise and with this knowledge I landed very good jobs with good and stable income which eventually brought me out of my personal problems.

I’m a bit short on time and can’t dig into the code, but maybe somebody can answer this for this or the original version:

In what data structure are the blocks in Minecraft actually stored? And by which mechanism are they quickly retrieved to check which block the player was hitting?

I would think the model partitions the space with an octree and their position jumps from parent node to parent node. Then at each bit we just have to go through 8 elements to find a block and all the entities for this partition.

You can only learn through play.

Play involves accessibility, low stakes (cost of fault is little), freedom and some sense of excitement and arousal. Maybe a sense of community should be added as well to this list.

Early video games from the SNES era, the early internet, Linux, programming etc. all have that.

Smartphones can have that as well, but they give access to all the things that don’t have that, and it is questionable whether parental limits are creating authentic spontaneity that is necessary to safety also necessary to be able to learn how to handle with these things.

Doesn’t have hypervisor on non-jailbroken iOS devices. It’s really a shame, otherwise I’d had my Linux iPad dream device.

You don’t have to eat what you don’t like. However, you could (un-)train yourself to like what you didn’t like before.

Over the lifetime our cognition, through conditioning, accumulates or eliminated emotional associations with things. E.g. the common person from our culture that didn’t know they were eating a dog would have a visceral physiological response to the associated disgust their brain launches once they were told that in fact they ate the dog.

And it’s okay, these associations exist and people have initially little control over them.

But people in cultures other than ours don’t have this association conditioned, and for them it’s perfectly fine to eat dog.

This shows that this is just a thing in the head, not physiological. I used to be together with a farmer girl and she saw and raised a cow with her father from it’s beginning until it’s meat ended in her stomach as chewed through juicy steak.

Who’s “right” here? Nobody, it is what it is. Everything is possible.

Employers like this should go to therapy instead of externalizing their pathology to other people. Just take the DMS-5 and go through the bullet points of Anxiety Disorders, Paranoid Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, it fits very well.

It would be great if he gave some examples which issues he encountered. I just used the standard ubuntu out of box experience and had no issues ever.

It's a great study. I would welcome if they did the same experiment and analysis on groups of people who had an anxiety disorder diagnosed and got healed, preferrably with CBT or other non-pharmacological methods alone, and a healthy population. It would be interesting to see the effects of therapy on this mechanism and whether an higher excitable FPI stays activated in the healed cohort or it's exitability is less, or the amygdala activation is again the root of all of this. It's notable that some healthy individuals had high FPI excitability but were not anxious.

Window of tolerance.

I can understand that you think in specifics but think for a second about the general value principles behind e.g. digging oil out of the ground.

The value is the oil, the cost is the work for extraction and the pollution.

Somebody having done the work to get out the oil is attributed credits because they did the work, had the cost in this referential way that you complained about below. How many credits they get is determined by demand and supply, where theoretically everybody looks at all the costs and utility and comes up with their idea of a price and then the market clears.

Now, then problem evidently is: We didn’t consider the costs your extraction put on all of us, the pollution. It was just “nah it’s fine”, but all things considered it’s not. Maybe the calculation is so bad that you now owe us for putting this cost on us - which would incentivize nobody to do that again. But we didn’t do it, and we gave you so many more credits than you deserved on all rational arguments that the whole picture is skewed.

The profits generated and accumulated in the wealthy class should in the long run not exist - theoretically.

But of course they do, and the answer to that is that somebody else is paying the price for their externalities.

I’m not jealous and wish for everybody to be able to achieve wealth, but please with due calculation of everybody involved. Because the goal of this economic game is not that you win and I lose, but that we both win sufficiently and then I don’t care if you have a nicer boat.

But we didn’t play this game, instead your wealth directly correlates with how much you pollute the commons, we both lose. The credit you own has no legitimation anymore. Why should we continue to act as if does?

Ofc the situation is extremely complicated and we can’t just disown or let the polluters “pay back” immediately, but things evidently have to change for this damage to both of us to stop.

I disagree. The attribution of money/credits/wealth points to a person or entity follows the exact same logic as the attribution of these hazardous emissions. You can’t have one and not the other.

I found it much easier to get less terrorized by the “shoulds” once I realized the mechanism of how they got embedded into my cognition in the first place - and by that why previous attempts of trying to get rid of them failed miserably.

See, it’s not something you can easily (or even at all) think yourself out of, similar to how you can’t think yourself easily out of loving somebody, mourning your deceased loved parents or needing to release the leftovers from your metabolism.

Schema “Should X” was conditioned into my cognitions by binding via association to a (previously) learned Schema of “Y is unsafe”/“Y impacts your probability of survival/mating/continued existence negatively” or summed up “Y makes you anxious”.

Somewhere in this process your brain (maybe falsely) infers ¬X -> Y. This might be e.g. by purely experiencing Y and ¬X at the same time (e.g. being bullied for ¬X, being in a overwhelmed state - think not enough met bodily needs, not enough slept, too much stress, too much hangover etc - and focusing on ¬X), explicitly arguing for the validity of the implication in some discussion (e.g. “People who chose to ¬X leads to Y, as we learned by reasons Z”).

The pitfall here is that once Y is concerned, it can for many of us be very difficult to stay rational. That is, because Y was in this recursive way already associated with the topic of bodily safety. And as we know, in war and love there are no rules, so basically one run risk of associating many many new ¬X to Y, which then themselves become new Y for the next recursive step, because the reasons Z seem to be true while they might be not.

And I get it, let’s not take chances, we might be playing with our lives here and end up without a partner, without a long list of exciting experiences, bad health etc.

But where is the end to this style of thinking? Eventually people realize this and stop conditioning themselves and others to new “Shoulds”, but what I see with many is that the huge stock of already conditioned Ys is not worked against, rather, they continue to seek to fill the Shoulds they already collected and lower the rate of adding new baggage of Shoulds.

The approach I chose is to be as conscious as possible (e.g. do all the things they say, eat well, sports, meditations, journaling etc etc) in order to witness - on a meta level if you will - when my behavior is a function of the “Y makes me feel unsafe” schema. And then, consciously and hard not to fulfill it and instead seek other ways to make me feel safe. Then I have the chance to break the conditioned association, stop adding new baggage, and slowly reverse the huge amount of Shoulds that exist in my cognition.

So to sum it up, it’s not sitting down and actively thinking “Should I really?”, it’s more like “I probably believe I should because I’m scared. Let’s remove being scared to wash out the interference. Then let’s lay out whether I really should”.

And most often, the answer really is “No, I shouldn’t”.

Thanks for the recommendation, I will check it out.

I’m already reading the Dhammapada (Gautama Buddha’s take on these and many other things) by Eknath Easwaran and can greatly recommend it to everybody as well.