robryk @robryk@qoto.org

@lauren @FLGLchicago @hackbyte

What properties would a good term have?

@munin

Hm~ yes, this is not a situation where one needs to coordinate, so just doing that works.

Sorry for rambling, I should probably go to sleep.

@munin

But that's also allowed in the byzantine general's problem? There's no restriction on what messages can be passed around there.

If you can only do that in pairwise conversations, sussing out malicious people who say different things depending on who they speak with (and claim falsely what they've said to/heard from others) is nontrivial. Having a way to make a statement that ~everyone can see (and that no one will see a different version of, and that everyone can trust to have this property) makes that much simpler.

@munin

The communication has to happen under Byzantine fault conditions sometimes though, given that people will sometimes be maliciously dishonest in different ways when interacting with different people. But I think I overestimated how much worse this makes things, because after all everyone has an equivalent of a broadcast primitive.

@munin

Fair point; generally being more proactive about getting the other side's story is both generally good and completely(?) mitigates this problem.

@munin

IRL it's very obvious that the complaints are hidden from the target of the complaints. The situation I'm trying to paint is one where this is not obvious to others (because the complaints are ostensibly public, and yet not available to the target of the complaints specifically).

I guess you expect people not to treat "complaint is public" as "B likely has seen the complaint", and explicitly talk to B?

@munin

How does this model handle the case of person A making otherwise-public-but-not-available-to-B disparaging statements about B? (I assume -- potentially incorrectly -- that the A's lack of consent for B to read the statements is not publicly visible, because that's typically the case.) (I can imagine the way this usually happened on Twitter -- that ~everyone knew this to be a possibility and thus interpreted B's silence differently -- but wonder if you have some other possible solution in mind.)

@8petros

Dla każdego epsilon znajdziesz takie N, że z prawdopobieństwem 1-epsilon ta wartość będzie bliżej niż epsilon do spodziewanej liczby.

@8petros

2 nie jest prawdziwe w tej formie. Prawdziwe jest, że przy odpowiednio dlugich seriach rzutów c(I)/n będzie dowolnie blisko 1/6, ale c(I)-n/6 nie będzie się zbliżało do zera (tak naprawdę będzie rosnąć jak sqrt(n)).

@littlescraps @fafo

I think this is a _very_ weird way to say "don't turn on without water inside/in the circuit". I suspect that the reason for the weird phrasing is that it was written by someone who didn't know English apart from technical vocabulary (so knew how to say anhydrous, and used "boot" in the sense of "booting").

@fafo

Aren't you missing one `no` emoji or an equivalent? (Anhydrous means devoid of water.)

@regehr

My main worry would be whether there isn't something tricky around horizontal operations (e.g. that ones that cross some boundary are much slower, or that only a few of them are passably fast).

@regehr

I'm not sure if that's anyhow fast, but you could perform the comparison (ending with an all-ones byte where it succeeded and all-zeroes elsewhere), AND it with a vector that has (2^i)-i in i-th position, OR it up, add 1, and use any of the scalar ways of figuring out which power of two that is.

(Alternatively, have the second vector have 2^i in i-th position, AND it with first, add them up and use a scalar way to figure out which is the highest bit set.

@adrian @regehr

Doesn't it do that in every vector element independently?

@mark

Your argument (modulo the part about traces being left everywhere) applies off the Internet too, right? (Or are the 3 people purely a metaphor for machines?)

@mark

Anyone or everyone?

@acb @m @cstross @GossiTheDog

I'm confused what it would do upon detection: it would have to substitute something in place of the real imagery. What would that thing be and how would it keep it consistent for (a) various rotations (b) various objects placed behind the object being imaged?

I could imagine this being easier to pull of with CT, but Vidisco (based on a single glance on their website) seems to sell imaging devices that have a single emitter and a single 2d sensor.

@mcc you might be amused by the diminutives (kruczek[1], kruczątko -- this word seems to have surprisingly few of them) and to know that biały kruk (white crow) means a rare old book.

[1] which also means fine print or gotcha

@mjg59

The feature might be logically impossible to implement correctly though.