robryk @robryk@qoto.org
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).
Joined Nov 2020
~~~ preventing any network traffic from ever leaving also does that, so you don't want to ignore the latter completely. Surely there's a tradeoff where what you're saying is a correct reasoning, but it's hard to tell whether in any case we actually want _that_ tradeoff.
My point was mainly that "badly written because it sends small packets" is something that you can easily test, monitor for, etc. and that has rather nonconfusing symptoms.
@isomer @sgf @danderson @nyquildotorg
> The best way is for the application to be explicit about if after sending these bytes it will expect a response in a timely manner or not.
Precisely. And anyone who uses buffering internally already has to do that, lest the whole thing deadlock.
@sgf @isomer @danderson @nyquildotorg
Is that a defense that actually helps though? Without it, the issue presents itself always. With it, the other issue presents itself only sometimes.
@isomer @sgf @danderson @nyquildotorg
If the buffer is not full, the buffered writer will not write until it gets full. People who deal with buffered writers are used to flushing them at appropriate times (and there are all those funny affordances like stdio's "flush out when someone's reading in").
@isomer @sgf @danderson @nyquildotorg
I would expect that elephants will buffer (and when they temporarily become mice they will either reshuffle things so that the bufferedwriter is out of the picture or they will simply keep flushing the writer at appropriate times). If that's the case then by disabling Nagle's algorithm we're wasting at most one packet each time the buffer is emptied (pessimistically we will emit one one-byte packet then). So, Nagle should be superfluous if we buffer with a buffer that's much larger than a packet or that's chosen to be a multiple of a packet's size. Am I missing some reason Nagle is useful?
robryk
boosted
@ai@cawfee.club
Coherer - The first kind of radio wave detector ever invented in history. It's basically a loose metal contact, similar to a "cold" solder joint. After applying a voltage, even under 1 volt, the contact resistance drops from near-infinity to a hundred ohms or so. Later versions used a tube of loose metal particles. Now 100 years have passed and its exact physical mechanisms remained unexplained.
Coherence of particles by radio waves is an obscure phenomenon that is not well understood even today. Recent experiments with particle coherers seem to have confirmed the [micro-welding] hypothesis [...] so-called "imperfect contact" coherers is also not well understood, but may involve a kind of tunneling of charge carriers across an imperfect junction between conductors.
Exploding bridge-wire detonator - A safe detonator for high explosives and nuclear weapons. You basically discharge a capacitor bank to a tiny wire in microseconds, the high energy causes the wire to explode, achieving detonation. The exact step-by-step physical mechanism that causes the wire explosion is still not fully explained.It is remarkable that 75 years later and after literally millions of EBW detonators have been fired, there is still uncertainty about how they actually work.
Funny examples:
- why does rubbing a balloon against hair charge both with opposite charges?
- why does unrolling scotch tape emit light?
I thought that EBW was simply a case of the wire rapidly vaporizing. What observations are not explained by that model? (Is the unexplained thing that it absorbs energy after the point when it must have warmed up past the boiling point?)
I would not expect food and drug standards to have much to do with occupational exposure.
Look at the construction (and the proof in appendix) of public key encryption scheme out of witness encryption in https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/258.pdf
It uses witness encryption, where the only confidentiality guarantee is that "if you encrypt the plaintext in a way that does not admit decryption at all, there will be no way to recover the plaintext from ciphertext", to construct something that actually has standardish confidentiality guarantees by exploiting that this property must extend to cases that are computationally indistinguishable from ones where the assumption really holds.
Maybe it would make sense to do something different for "noise at night" and everything else? I (but I'm not anywhere close to autistic ttbomk) would probably be interrupted less by something that would vary in response to noise I'm making, so something like a lamp with brightness ~ sigmoid(is_it_night)*some_function(sliding_window_average(noise_level)) might be helpful for that?
(feel free to tell me that i'm saying terribly obvious/obviously wrong things and that I should stop)
CW meta
Nit: at the protocol level it looks really weird, because the CW goes into a "subject" field.
I think it wasn't about revealing his precise location (he was arrested at his or his brother's house IIUC), but about creating some minimal amount of publicly-visible evidence that he's in Romania or making the police aware of his presence in Romania.
Source: https://nitter.net/Esqueer_/status/1608579412588650496
Not that I can offer an answer, but I expect that expected latency of response might matter, and I'm not sure if it's 5minutes or 50.
@8petros Wiele firm informatycznych cierpi na chorobę: cenią to co pracownicy robią nie za efekt, ale za włożony trud. Gdy te dwie rzeczy się rozbiegają, zwykle efekt tej choroby jest mizerny.
Ten przykład sugeruje mi, że w przypadku indywidualnych decyzji w (codziennym) życiu też nie jest to dobra metoda.
> Mastodon has no such algorithm, and therefor is not random.
I think there's actually more influence of randomness here, given that whether I see a given post depends on whether I happen to look at it in a stream of date-sorted posts at the time that I pick by a random process that's not influenced much by other things in fedi. If I had a queue of unseen posts sorted by some weight (or a feed that rate-limits posts I see by picking the ones with highest weight when the incoming rate is too high), the weight would be a good predictor for whether I will see the post. Until the post is boosted by (more) of people I follow, that weight is uniform across all the posts in my Home feed.
Randomness is a good model for the world, in the same way in which temperature is a good model for motion of molecules. You can similarly say that temperature is just a placeholder for all the variables we don't know about (motion of individual molecules).
What I'm curious about is: let's say a similar post was posted by a similar person at a similar time. Would you be more certain about predicting whether it'd become viral based on everything you can see at the time it was posted here, or on e.g. Twitter?
@retr0id The reason I'm asking is: if that interface is much cheaper and would not have these problems, a pure-js viewer (hosted whenever, it's just a static html/js website) would help.
@retr0id Relatedly, does this mean that the same problem affects post fetching interface on your instance (i.e. same URLs with `Accept: application/json+ld`)?
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).
Joined Nov 2020
