>>2104
Some Drexel students tried making something that could "anonymize" text input, but it doesn't use machine learning.
https://github.com/psal/anonymouth

>>2105
Hm it doesn't seem like it automatically does the anonymization yet. As of now it seems to just highlight the distinguishing features which the user can manually edit.

>>2104
Maybe something like this:
https://steganography.live/

Take your input sentence, "modulate" it with a random sentence to get a semantically equivalent but "encoded" version of the input.

>>2357
neat

These sorts of counterintuitive puzzles are great at forcing you to understand physics. Another one I came across which I'm still trying to puzzle out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-trDF8Yldc

Which manifests in the "sailing downwind faster than the wind" thing demonstrated by Blackbird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(land_yacht)

It won't, because the wings will crash into the treadmill.

>>2354
Ok after some thinking I think I understand this now. There are two main questions to address: why the top wheel counterintuitively spins anti-clockwise despite a force directed from left to right, and why the entire contraption moves to the right faster than the ruler.

The key thing to first observe is that the bottom two wheels aren't uniform in radius. They have an inner and an outer radius (due to the nature of the cotton spoon) which is perhaps more clearly seen in this diagram [1]. This already gives a hint of why it can move to the right faster than the applied force, due to a "gear ratio" effect. However, while the calculations are useful for verifying this quantitatively, it still doesn't give a good intuitive answer, nor does it explain why the top wheel spins anti-clockwise.

The best answer I've seen is courtesy of a post on reddit [2] which I'll quote here for completeness

> For the car to move right, the little wheels must turn clockwise, and the big wheel must turn counter-clockwise. This would give you the impression that the ruler must go left to turn the wheel counter-clockwise. That is true, relative to the car.

>Looking at the construction, one immediately suspects that the size of the wheels is somehow involved. But that isn't quite it. Actually, it is because the big wheel touches the ground wheels on an axle, not the part of the wheel that touches the ground. This creates a situation where the speed the outside of the little wheels move faster (in terms of linear velocity) than the outside of the big wheel.

>So, shifting out point of view to the car, you have a wheel to the ruler, and wheels to the ground, and the wheels are geared such that both surfaces move in the same direction, but the ground moves faster, relative to the car

>So imagine now that the car has a motor, and the ruler is just resting on top. As the car moves right, the ground moves left relative to the car. The ruler moves left relative to the car, but slower than the ground. Th

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2356
This explanation also naturally extends to the "downwind faster than the wind" vehicle Blackbird. It's the same principle, where you derive energy from the relative difference in speed between the air (the ruler) and the ground. There should be no doubt that this is possible in the simple gear example, or you can also think of a lever if you like a static equivalent of how you can increase speed (at the expense of decreased force).

But with a propellor in the vehicle, now the linkage becomes a bit more subtle. You have to consider the propellor not just as a flat disk, but consider the actual blades of the propellor itself which take a helical path. Then the issue of gear ratio is manifested between the forward motion of the vehicle and pitch of the propellor. The fact that the wheels turn the propellor in the direction against the wind, means that vehicle can travel faster than the wind (with respect to the ground) while still maintaining the property that a single propellor blade – importantly accounting for the helical path – is traveling slower than the air surrounding it. The parallels to the simple 3-wheel cart should be clear.

>>1211
>I've never once in my life heard someone refer to a GPU or APU as just a "processor".

which clearly means nobody elsewhere in the world has or ever will, as you've been everywhere in the world, all the same time, and are the authoritative expert on the subject.

>You knew damn well what he was talking about.

I never said I didn't.

>You were just playing devil's advocate for a purpose I'm not entirely clear of. To appear "knowledgeable" by making the distinction, maybe?
Perhaps I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. On the internet. Because I have absolutely nothing more productive to do at this very moment.
And arguments are the only type of conversation I am capable of doing with another person.

>>1215
I'll give you credit for the honesty.

Honestly I wouldn't notice the difference if everything worked right but subjectively speaking I choose Intel forever, just because I always had issues/subpar performance with AMD/ATI back in the day.
Also their hurr durr epyk gayming branding is fucking embarrassing. I'd never put something called Bulldozer or Ryzen in my computer.

>>1855
Interesting how quickly things change. Intel has been sleeping at the wheel for the past two years with their "tick-tock" being more of a "tick-tick-tick". Of course Apple has hit it out of the park with their arm-based processor. One might optimistically hope this could lead to the resurgence of different isas (maybe riscv?) but we're probably more realistically going to see arm-based processors start shaving off marketshare from x64 ones. Amazon already has graviton as part of their ec2 lineup, and hopefully the momentum from apple's processor transition will lead to better tooling for cross compilations and platform agnostic primitives.

>>1178
Only 1 of the games I regularly play are linux compatible and I'm not interested in Super Tux Kart or wasting an hour configuring wine to have the game run at 15 frames per second.

Debian stable, nowadays. I used to use Arch, but systemd and various other shit came along with a steady downturn in general, so I jumped ship to one of the only remaining (at the time) options in Debian. Howewer, a few months after that, Debian made the decision to eventually switch to systemd as well, so I'm not sure where to run once the current stable release becomes obsolete.

>>1176
Realistically you don't encounter many OS level bugs these days unless you're doing something weird, yes.
I have an idealized image from what I've heard of live-hackable Lisp and Smalltalk machines of a system where the source for everything is easy to bring up and understand and modify. Obviously not even OpenBSD fits that bill, anything that simple would be a toy OS unfit for normal use. But it's nice to daydream about, I suppose.

This is a really interesting project. I wonder why it hasn't caught on more.
>Like other device driver interfaces used in Operating Systems today, UDI defines an architecture and a set of APIs for use between the driver and the surrounding system. This allows drivers and OSes to be developed independently. UDI goes a step further and provides APIs that are OS-neutral and platform-neutral, allowing multiple OSes and platforms to use the exact same driver.
http://www.project-udi.org/

>>2240
What's the difference between that and 2-clause BSD?

>>2241
The 2 clause BSD has no copyleft. Derivative works or even direct copies don't have to include the part of the license which allows for free usage(which isn't clearly defined in the 2 clause BSD). The only thing you have to include is the attribution to the original writer(copyright notice), the conditions, and the warranty, but not the part which lets you do whatever you want to it within some parameters.

This license also doesn't require the name of any copyright holder.

Post edited on 2nd Apr 2021, 3:22pm

>>2242
>don't have to include the part of the license which allows for free usage
To clarify by free you mean libre or gratis? The 2-BSD states

> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification
which seems to cover the libre part for source distributions.

If you mean gratis, then your license mentions "and/or sell copies of the Software" and allows binary distribution, which would prevent that.

>>2243
No, I don't mean gratis. Free as defined as
>deal in the Software without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell
Somebody could sell their version for money, but the person who bought it would be able to do all of the above with their copy after buying it. Binary distributions can still be copied and sold. Somebody could also de-compile binary software and/or otherwise modify it in some way.

The bsd license does not require this part
>Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
To be included in derivatives and copies of the software. You only have to leave Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>, the list, and the warranty.

If they are
> in another super-cluster
we will never know

> in another galaxy
we won't know for a long long looong time from now and it's probably irrelevant for us today

> in our galaxy and we detect them in the near future
we are totally fucked, as their first radio signals will reach us thousand years after they have broadcasted them, meaning they have a technological lead of their distance divided by lightspeed minus the few years we use radio signals

> in our galaxy and they detect us first
things will be interesting, as this is the only scenario contact to aliens could be as it is depicted in media with the slight difference that we are actually the far superior civilication

> in our galaxy and we receive their first radio signals from a distance that, devided by lightspeed, is approximately the time we use radio signals ourselves
prepare for interstellar war!

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1891
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/im-convinced-we-found-evidence-of-life-on-mars-in-the-1970s/

Perseverance have just successfully landed in Mars.

>>1889
It's a statistical impossibility. Not just a little one like how it's statistically impossible that you will win the lottery, bigger than that. Much, much bigger. The chances are something like 1 in 10^100

They're Ruskies, so I don't care.

>>2196
An imageboard doesn't need "features." Tinyboard/Vichan basically nailed it. The edit feature available on TC is perhaps the only real improvement that upstream tinyboard is missing.

All you need is text + file upload. Other stuff is bloat that you can tack on later.
In regards to coding one, HTML5+CSS has actually helped quite nicely. Use custom HTML tags and CSS selectors and things will be much easier.

Gurochan is back and it's being hosted or something like that by the same Russians as heyuri, kolyma network. I found this cease and desist letter they sent to "guroboard", since kolyma apparently now owns the tradmark gurochan. Don't know if this is real, but it's weird.

https://2ちゃん.net/src/866.txt

Oh, apparently it's real. Imagine if tohno trademarked tohnochan
https://img.gurochan.ga/dis/res/11127.html

Post edited on 13th Feb 2021, 11:54am

My thought is that they have low adoption rates, which means standards that advance at the pace of a dead snail. People fill their sites with slow, pointless/malicious scripts and bad design because they can. People can also choose not to do those things. "Quality" via stringent restriction is unecessary and misguided.

I've tried gopher before, and it really does all it needs to (there's even an imageboard available, 1436chan, gopher://khzae.net/1/chan).
I like how it forces everything to be usable be text-only browsers, text being the universal interface.
Making a gopherhole is also fun because it's so easy. It is what the web should be.
If Gemini is pretty much that but in encrypted, then I'd probably be on board as well, but I haven't tried it yet.

>>2173
I really like Gemini. I believe Gemini has some kind of scalability issue however so it could never become a replacement for HTTP. Nonetheless, I intend to use it myself at some point. I do like the idea of forcibly keeping things simple.

It's more an issue of content, not protocol, so I don't think alternative protocols will be that useful to solving this. That is, you can choose to make plain-text no-js sites served over http but not many people do so nowadays. Although I guess the giants are trying to stamp out plain http in favor of http over tls which seems pretty pointless for most read-only content.

>>2064
Care to elaborate? Because the first paragraph of your image is utter nonsense.

>>2065
(for some reason can't edit, so apologies for double post).
Besides the conclusions that don't follow from the previous statements, you also have patently false statements such as "time is space" (while they're linked, sure, they're not interchangeable as clearly seen from the fact that the minkowski metric has a different sign for the time dimension than it does for space).
This seems more like the work of a crank than something substantive.

>>2066
It helps to enter a password manually, the ones given tend to change on their own.

>>2067
I think it's because I have cookies set to expire pretty aggressively, which invalidates the default generated password. I should probably write a userscript or something to automatically set the "postpassword" cookie to a fixed secret value.

Japanese university math is pretty advanced (relative to the equivalent in US).

Post edited on 2nd Jul 2020, 8:44pm

>>2041
This just looks like sequences and (finite) series, though.

OP, you did well in asking if there was such a subject beforehand. Lately I was asking myself if there was something on sequences that are like arithmetical progressions, but with a different ratio between every number. I research deep in every possible related topic and couldn't find anything, even describing the problem didn't help. I ended up finding some formulas of my own, in the end, and was even going to post them here and ask about, but eventually I found they actually exist and are called quadratic sequences. There isn't a lot about them, though. The existing formulas are very different from the ones I made, and it appears that there are (as I suspected) even higher orders of magnitude, like cubic etc. What do you guys think of this whole thing?

>>2045
I think you can just generalize everything by writing it as a recurrence relation. For a quadratic relation we know that we must have

d(n) = f(n+1) - f(n) = an + b, which implies that f(n+1) = f(n) + an + b.

Now for the particular case of quadratic sequences I think finding a general formula for the nth term is relatively straightforward because we know how to do sums of arithemtic sequences, so you can apply this to find d(1) + d(2) + ... + d(n) which immediately gives you a formula for what f(n+1) is. Same thing applies for "cubic sequences" as well and so on since we have nice closed form solutions for those.