namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
@TradeMinister
Of course, you and your buddies are the only real scientist left, therefore instead of doing said work, you must recruit the ignorant for your great cause (of what exactly?), with conspirators rhetoric. You are just confirming what I said.
@mystik @amerika @arteteco @manarock
@amerika
I'm describing your behaviour I observe. Present your own words against mine, unless you are implying those of god that the chosen are aware of by nature and are beyond the comprehension of the my heathen race.
@mystik @TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock
@amerika
The consensus is the only thing that matters, if your effort was genuine it would be directly at convincing said scientist and not dismissing them as biased. You clearly don't have neither the ability not desire to do so. Instead you preach some grand religious revelations to other laymen like you in hopes to exploit their ignorance. Your truth is subjective and your conduct is uncouth.
@TradeMinister @mystik @amerika @arteteco @manarock
people who spent their entire lives studying biology: ok this is really complicated, we can't make any definitive conclusions, outside of some very narrow contexts.
laymen with agenda: hahaha, these stupid scientist don't know anything, but I figured it out, I'm gonna tell the race of every person on the planet, line em up:
nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, jew, nigger, jew, jew, nigger-jew, jew-nigger...
@georgia To me the phrase seems to indicate something tangential and inconsequential, and why would one care of such things, if not out of curiosity? Thus "It is curious note..." is my suggestion, unless the aversion to smug is even greater.
@freemo *second reply @theamazingweb @General
@freemo "reversible PRNG" is the most clear and concise description, according to the author and rephrased by me in my first reply. You did not clarify anything further, not that I'm asking you to.
@theamazingweb @General
@freemo Again, you are arguing with the creator not me, as in that very website it is described as a reversible PRNG (or invertible to be exact). The only (and the definitive) thing random about PRNGs is that their output is meant to appear random, which is exactly the goal of this website as well. The parallel with compression maybe curious, but the whole thing is even more pointless from that perspective.
@freemo You can argue the meaning of the term PRNG with the creator of the website if you are so inclined, to me it seems fitting both for the purpose and the specific realization, and that's not my point.
In theory you can do everything a computer does on a piece of paper (who would have known! computers demystified! what an incredible discovery!), but that doesn't change the meaning of the algorithm, and what is considered its input and its output.
@freemo It's a pseudo random number generator, so sure not truly random, but theoretically it's no better, and worse than a simple counter. It also has a stupid magic trick that generates a seed for you based on input text, very clever, still useless. You'll never find anything there that you haven't input yourself, and yet to dig out this simple truth you have to go trough a wall of text after a wall of text of pretentious mumbo-jumbo.
@freemo It doesn't contain anything, it generates random garbage on request. It's no more everything than nothing is. Typical software marketing... re
@newt what are you even arguing with? Where did I say GCC took over the desktop market? GCC allowed competing operating systems and architectures to take over alternate markets, embedded, servers, mobile. Whatever competition exist (barely) in desktop market as well owes its existence to GCC. Software product is a fallacy, selling it is exploitation. Only thing you can reasonably sell in our industry is technical service and warranty. Yes the current snake oil industry hinges on marketing, that is not a good thing, or something to strive for.
Sure thing LLVM is in every way technically superior and that is why GCC is still going toe to toe with it after a decade of competition. And omg It's so modular that every language worth a dime has to fork it.
GCC on the other hand apparently is not modular enough where you want it to be, and too modular where you don't want it be. And of course it is impossible to fork GCC to eliminate those glaring flaws that RMS personally demands, cause you know, that's how GPL works. I don't care about the mythology and politics around any of these celebrities, saying that they are preventing anything for GCC is a non-argument. Competition is not about being nice and wonderful and always agreeing with everything, if you think your ideas are better, fork it, if you can't fork it, than you abstract musings are irrelevant.
Reinventing wheels is common in R&D. But marketing R&D before it's ready, trying to influence the public through buzzwords and drama, and deliberately avoiding any sorts of guarantees are characteristics of a snake oil industry.
@newt every competing operating system for the longest time was built with GCC. How competing could they be if they had to license microsoft's proprietary toolchain? Many hardware designers/manufacturers were lifted of the curse of "but will the software monopolist port their software for my new arch??".
Now of course everyone's favorite llvm came along, with exactly the same ideas of "copyleft doesn't work", "permissive means more freedom" (including freedom to exploit users), and in all this years of claiming technical superiority, the fact that it hasn't driven gcc out of the market is making it more and more clear, that the real reason for its existence is the proprietary forks galore, by nvidia, apple, and others, and if push come to shove with android, google surely as well, as it has already preemptively dropping support for gcc, when the replacement was designed to be almost identical, and not in any way incompatible.
@newt I meant the software world. I'm talking about the industry not some grandiose, all encompassing ideology. The reason microsoft doesn't own the entire industry is GCC. GPL != copyleft, GPL is a tool, that can work or not work. Copyleft is a cultrue. The only thing google owns that is in the realm of unjust abuse of copyright and where licenses matter at all is a couple of platform. If a couple key projects, that only existed thanks to GPL2, embraced the culture and upgraded their tools to GPL3 or AGPL (instead of admitting that they had no clue what GPL2 is even about) this would not have happened. WEB and all of it's standards is a pathology that formed to escape microsoft's ownership of desktop market, and it will eventually implode, when desktop market is reclaimed. I don't know what linux propaganda you talk about, but the only one I'm aware of is "as long as my project is successful I don't give a damn that it's in snake oil industry".
I'm not imposing anything on you, I simply joined the discussion to present my point of view. Your implication that I'm imposing on a public discussion is equivalent of asking me to simply stfu, which I must admit is commonly considered a very strong argument.
@newt The reason microsoft does not own the world today is copyleft, the fact that its the competitors embraced the same culture instead of rejecting it is the problem, not copyleft. Copyleft will eventually displace them too. Your "I don't give a damn" attitude only helps them.
@Ted @Shamar @duponin
@newt you accept the reign of proprietary software, the culture and the industry it established, and then try to come up with excuses for it. Copyleft rejects it and wants to displace it. The small company shouldn't compete with the large to establish it's own little international monopoly on it's own little obscure product, then whine about how copyleft doesn't help them. It should directly serve the local population like electricians, mechanics or plumbers do. It should create infrastructure and dictate quality standards. Nobody want to do this hard work, it's just easier accept the narrative that copyleft was tried and didn't work, which remains the last line of defense for the established culture. We don't know what a true competition is, in true competition most of us would be yer average plumbers, and none of us wants it.
@Ted @Shamar @duponin
lower is marries to both higher and upper, and downer is just sad... life is so unfair...
re: random thought, privacy
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe only nothing can be forever and all encompassing, everything else is limited.
A database so huge you can't ever hope to sort through it in your lifetime is as good as deleted. Unless the power/knowledge is usurped by other means, in a world where there is no effective encryption, there will be an arms race to flood the logs with useless data, and the many will always overpower the few, for the benefit of all. Every set of keywords or patterns you can fit in your head would match more records than you can count. We will develop a neural network obfuscator that will fool your neural network filter to dismiss legitimate communication as spam. Quick, someone write a sci-fi novel! "The mugbook agent looks up who have arranged an informal meeting at a specific place and specific time, and finds that half the population of the city did. He turns on SpamAway3000 and everything vanishes. He starts lowering the sensitivity and bunch of obvious false positives start popping up with obfuscated PwndBySpamCrew signatures on them".
@Shamar
Assuming 2's complement ~(0LL) will be -1, and adding 1 will bring it back to 0, which is not a signed integer overflow (curiously this sequence of ~ +1 corresponds to negation in 2's complement).
Something like this would do it ~(1LL << 63) + 1, overflowing from maximum value to minimum.
This kind of overflow, from max to min (or back) is undefined behavior in C/C++ (the only languages that matter :P), which means if you do that your compiler may "optimize" your entire program away or do something else sinister. A more subtle side effect is that you're not allowed to negate the minimum value, as that produces a value that is one more than maximum, so even that simple unary operation is not safe. Historically this was to account for different implementations of signed integers, but it's maintained on latest standards as well, as such a type has proven to be useful for certain optimizations, in contexts where you can otherwise guarantee no overflow will occur.
Up until the latest standards you couldn't legally do 2's complement arithmetic in these languages. With the latest you can, but not directly, only by casting to unsigned type and then casting back.
That said, nobody but the nerdiest care about such things. Normal people most likely break the standards left and right in this regard, there are probably even compiler flags/settings to accommodate that.
