quantadev

Right, because it's not a war plan. A war plan is about when, where, how, who, etc, for specific attack(s).

Other than war plans, religious text was pretty much the only thing in the 1500s that would have been encrypted. However war plans would be very unlikely to be disguised as a botany book, for all kinds of reasons. War plans are temporary, not something you'd dedicate that level of artistic effort and permanence to.

Like I said in another post (sorry for repeating) since this was during 1500s, the main thing people would've been encrypting back then was biblical text (or any other religion).

Maybe a version of scripture that had been "rejected" by some King, and was illegal to reproduce? Take the best radiocarbon dating, figure out who was King back then, and if they 'sanctioned' any biblical translations, and then go to the version of the bible before that translation, and this will be what was perhaps illegal and needed to be encrypted. That's just one plausible story. Who knows, we might find out the phrase "young girl" was simplified to "virgin", and that would potentially be a big secret.

Being from the 15th Century the obvious reason to encrypt text was to avoid religious persecution during "The Inquisition" (and other religion-motivated violence of that time). So it would be interesting to run the same NLP against the Gospels and look for correlations with that. You'd want to first do a 'word'-based comparison, and then a 'character'-based comparison. I mean compare the graphs from Bible to graphs from Voynich.

Also there might be some characters that are in there just to confuse. For example that bizarre capital "P"-like thing that has multiple variations seems to appear sometimes far too often to represent real language, so it might be just an obfuscator that's removed prior to decryption. There may be other characters that are abnormally "frequent" and they're maybe also unused dummy characters. But the "too many Ps" problem is also consistent with just pure fiction too, I realize.

Replace "is a" with "has one".

Ah, I gotcha, thanks for explaining. Yeah the 'accretion disk' are what this is normally called. Lots of matter is getting smashed right outside the EH, creating heat energy, and like you said it's able to blast out photons.

What I meant to say was "asymptotically approaches infinity" for 'f(x)' at some limiting value 'x' and thus a left/right mirroring of the function. I shouldn't assume people know I mean vertical just because I say asymptotic, so thanks for catching that imprecision in my wording.

As you probably know, horizontal asymptotes are never what we think of as the 'problematic' parts of Relativity, because when something approaches a constant that's never something that breaks the math.

The Schwarzchild metric, being a relationship of 6 different variables I think, has some relationships that go to infinity asymptotically at the EH radius and some things that approach a constant at that radius, so it's an example of the kind of asymptotic I was talking about _and_ one like your "horizontal" example.

How are they getting blasted in the face when such a blast would necessarily have to be moving faster than light?

Nobody knows what happens at the event horizon, but we do know from the perspective of an outside observer things about physics 'break'. It makes sense that there's a flip-side to that 'breakage' (on the inside of the surface, or even "only at" the surface) that isn't just normal space as if nothing happened.

For example there's no mathematics at all that mankind has ever known where an asymptotic approach towards some limit doesn't have a mirror version (usually inverted) on the other side of the asymptote. If we see time stop, at the EH it seems wrong to assume there's nothing "stopped" similarly from the other side too. So this means the surface has to be very special. You don't just pass by it and not notice as you fall in, imo.

Some "infinities" of singularity are at the center sure, but all the maximal Relativistic effects are at the EH surface. It's even proven that the entropy (informational content roughly) is equal to the EH area divided by the number of planc-length square areas, as the amount of quantum arrangements of information that are allowed "inside". That is a HUGE hint everything's remaining on the surface.

For example, when you see a clock fall into a BH you see it stop ticking at the EH, not at the center. It's a common misconception that everything about them is at the center, but everything interesting is at the surface.

It's just like the Lorentz Tranform or any other of the laws of Relativity. Things can get very massive and/or time can slow way down, but ultimately there's not a "problem" (i.e. mathematical failure requiring the theory to be extended) until the speed of light is reached, as an asymptotic limit.

But you're raising a good point that maybe Lorentz is pointing to 'non-integer dimensionality' where even enough mass crammed into a small enough space causes the "new maths" to begin to noticeably take hold. Like I said I see Lorentz as a way to transform dimensionality from N-D to (N +/- 1)D, but in a continuous and 'differentiable' way.

In super simplistic terms Lorentz is a "compression" function where one dimension of space is compressed perfectly flat, which is the mathematical equivalent of removing that dimension from the 'degrees of freedom' of the system.

In black holes we have essentially a "loss of a dimension" (it's a much bigger story to explain what that even means, that I won't attempt here), so it might be the case that the three-quark arrangement known as 'baryons' only forms according to number of space dimensions (3D == 3 Quarks), making baryons only happen in 3D, so that when stuff reaches an event horizon, the quarks rip apart and rearrange into something where there's simply no such thing as a baryon (i.e. in 2D space). I'm someone who thinks the 'surface' of an event horizon is where the laws are preserved, and that the singularity or even perhaps the entire interior inside black holes may simply not exist at all.

Much of where Relativity "breaks" spacetime (i.e. problems with infinities and divide-by-zero) can be solved by looking at things as a loss of a dimension. For example, length contraction is compressing out a dimension (at light speed), and also time dilation (at event horizons, or light speed) is a removal of a dimension as well. Yes, this is similar to Holographic Principle, if you're noticing that. In my view even Lorentz equation itself is an expression of how you can smoothly transform an N-Dimensional space down to an (N-1)-Dimensional space, which happens on an exponential-like curve where the asymptote is reached right when the dimension is "lost". I think "time" always seems like a special dimension, no matter what dimensionality you're in, because it's the 'next one up' or 'next one down' in this hierarchy of dimensionality in spaces. This is the exact reason 'time' in the Minkowski Space distance formula must be assigned the opposite sign (+/-) from the other dimensions, and holds true regardless of whether you assume time to be positive v.s. negative (i.e. called Metric Signature). This of course implies our entire 4D universe is itself a space embedded in a larger space, and technically it's also an "event horizon" from the perspective of higher dimensions.

Not to complain but this "introduction" would've been better if it was just a simple tool to add numbers to make an LLM able to solve "What is 10 + 50?" using a remote tool. By solving a complex problem you've just added unnecessary complexity. Everyone would've already known how to extend a function call to solve some other set of problems. Sure it made the intro more "impressive" as an actual accomplishment, but seems like counterproductive impressiveness bordering on just showing off. lol. Nice work tho. I was impressed.

As long as MCP "just works" (and it does) and is relatively simple enough, then simply by being first, rather than being best, is what made it successful.

It's already gone so viral it's practically entrenched already, permanently. Everyone has invested too much time saying how much they love MCP. If we do find something cleaner it will still be called MCP, and it will be considered a 'variation' (new streaming approach maybe) on MCP rather than some competitor protocol replacing it. Maybe it will be called 'MCP 2.0' but it will be mostly the same and retain the MCP name for decades to come, I think.

There's always a trade-off between performance v.s. clearness in the code.

If a certain function has many preconditions it needs to check, before running, but needs to potentially run from various places in the code, then moving the precondition checks outside the method results in faster code but destroys readability and breaks DRY principle.

In cases where this kind of tension (DRY v.s. non-DRY) exists I've sometimes named methods like 'maybeDoThing' (emphasis on 'maybe' prefix) indicating I'm calling the method, but that all the precondition checks are inside the function itself rather than duplicate logic all across the code, everywhere the method 'maybe' needs to run.

BigQuery supports all those SQL things I mentioned.

I've already noticed I'm getting lazy, because of AI, and other developer friends say they are also. I'd rather explain to an AI what I want done, instead of actually writing the code, just because it's easier to explain it than do it.

Having proper constraints and foreign keys that are clear is generally all that's needed in my experience. Are you sure your tables have well defined constraints, so that the AI can be absolutely 100% sure how everything links up? SQL is very precise, but only if you're utilizing constraints and foreign key definitions well.

I agree. There's really no magic to it any more. The table create DDL commands are a very precise description of the tables, so almost nothing more is ever needed. You can just describe in detail what query you need, and any decent LLM can do it just fine.

Right. In the near term, I'm predicting a dramatic decline in software quality, because code was never understood and tested properly. In the future we will have better processes, and better ways of letting AI do it's own checking/validation, but that's lagging right now.

There's quite a dichotomy going on in software development. With AI, we can all create much more than we ever could before, and make it much better and even in much less time, but what we've lost is the sense of pride that comes with the act of creating/coding, because nowadays:

1) If you wrote most of it yourself then you failed to adequately utilize AI Coding agents and yet...

2) If AI wrote most of it, then there's not exactly that much of a way to take pride in it.

So the new thing we can "take pride in" is our ability to "control" the AI, and it's just not the same thing at all. So we're all going to be "changing jobs" whether we like it or not, because work will never be the same, regardless of whether you're a coder, an artist, a writer, or an AD agency fluff writer. Then again pride is a sin, so just GSD and stop thinking about yourself. :)

Not "independently reinvented" ?

If it's name is 'codex-cli' then that means "Codex Command Line Interface" so the name is absolutely codex.

Yep, I "independently reinvent" the wheel every day I guess, because I, ya know...use wheels.

Sounds like you haven't quite found a mistake yet. Keep thinking. Maybe you'll think of something.

You're seriously nit picking what "collective label" means? It means that name was accepted by the community.

Interestingly, this algo has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "Wavelets" or even waves. The name "wavelet" stuck to it mostly only because it uses a recursive decomposition approach which happens to be something that Wavelet does in actual wave processing. It got collectively labeled "Wavelet" when what was really meant was just "Recursive".

You weren't wrong. Wavelet Trees have no relationship whatsoever to vector embeddings.

Well in that case...Congratz, you've invented sarcasm.

So what's the summary of how this works? I don't think it was explained well, and I'm fairly up to speed with the physics of photons etc. Is it that the multiple lasers are able to destructively interfere with each other so that they cancel out the noise from each other since the noise will be the same in all of them? That's tricky because if the photons are phase shifted to cancel out the noise that seems like the ENTIRE laser signal would be cancelled out too. Maybe this is what's happening, and the only thing "left over" is the signal from the source (what's being measured)?