Isn't it interesting how this works?
Isn't it interesting how this works?
The abos are not so innocent as the liberals want to portray them after all.
Here's the thing: the upside of inventing a writing system is world domination; the downside is finally having to admit in public that you are a real ass (and always have been).
In the above, "you" is a set of nesting dolls, innermost being the fifty-year-old white male technocrats of western European origin who treat Wikipedia as their private, personal playgrounds (thence to aging white European males, white European males, white males, whites altogether, etc.)
Here's the second thing: after a society invents writing, soon the society has written myths (with serious legacy entrenchment) that innocence preceded the current sad state of affairs (how-far-I-have-fallen porn, not that the larger consequences can't be remedied by kneeling under the right cumulus cloud for a thoroughly abject sixty seconds).
Society will re-invent writing over and over again (movable type, Movable Type) before the reversal of true illumination makes the least headway: that the human asshole apogee was attained circa the advent of the original edged weapon.
As far as the abos go, they all need to repeat to themselves "there but for the grace of God go I", unless they think their ancestors truly enlightened enough to not have had even the most remote possibility of inventing any form of written record, whatsoever (best if you're not much past the wreathie leafy loin cloth, because any loose thread threatens to quipu a long record, and then immediately you're on the outie asshole train along with every other post-prehistoric posse of mugs, pugs, and thugs).
Google's AI is literally leaps-and-bounds ahead of the game in that respect as the search space is so much unbelievably huger than chess that chess is laughable in comparison.
Most people are too nice to point this out, but what you just wrote here amounts to waving a bright red "I'm an idiot" flag.
Consider this: the search space of Go 25x25 is so much unbelievably huger than Go 19x19 that Go 19x19 is laughable in comparison.
But wait, I'm not done.
Consider this: the search space of Go 37x37 is so much unbelievably huger than Go 25x25 that Go 25x25 is laughable in comparison.
Just two strides, and I'm already breaking into a Cantor.
Consider this: the search space of AES 512 is so much unbelievably huger than AES 256 that AES 256 is laughable in comparison.
Are you still laughing?
Check out Game complexity. By your chosen criteria, Connect6 19x19 two decimal orders of magnitude more manly than mere Go.
Really? That's the standard you judge by?
Why did this "expert" leave his laptop in his car?
You've never parked your car overnight A) at a job site (last minute state of emergency) or B) in front of a woman's house, one you don't yet know all that well?
Possible answer is that he has a life.
The only thing the 1950s needed to obtain recent results in convolutional neural networks, was the planar process of 1959 and a suitably accelerated coefficient of Moore's law. We can get there by applying the inverse Hackermann function.
When planning a project, increase the amount of time that you estimate it will take by doubling the number and going up to the next time unit.
Dividing 18 by 2 and shifting to a lower unit gives us a doubling time of nine weeks. Probably we're recognizing cats by 1967. Before the modern API was half fleshed out.
Seriously, have you looked at the sophistication of mathematics in the 1950s?
The discovery came when Ono and fellow mathematician Andrew Granville were leafing through Ramanujan's manuscripts, kept at the Wren Library at Trinity College, Cambridge. "We were sitting right next to the librarian's desk, flipping page by page through the Ramanujan box," recalls Ono. "We came across this one page which had on it the two representations of 1729 [as the sum of cubes]. We started laughing immediately."
What the equation in Ramanujan's manuscript illustrates is that Ramanujan had found a whole family (in fact an infinite family) of positive whole number triples x, y and z that very nearly, but not quite, satisfy Fermat's famous equation for n=3.
Ono and Trebat-Leder found that Ramanujan had also delved into the theory of elliptic curves. He did not anticipate the path taken by Wiles, but instead discovered an object that is more complicated than elliptic curves. When objects of this kind were rediscovered around forty years later they were adorned with the name of K3 surfaces — in honour of the mathematicians Ernst Kummer, Erich Kahler and Kunihiko Kodaira, and the mountain K2, which is as difficult to climb as K3 surfaces are difficult to handle mathematically.
His work amounts to one box, kept at Trinity College, and three notebooks, kept at the University of Madras. That's not a lot. It's crazy that we are still figuring out what he had in mind. When is it going to end?"
The book is not even closed yet on the mathematics of the 1920s.
Not sure why a company that big and rich can't roll out updated hardware every year or so.
Try some simple algebra. Let C=cartel. Let O=oligopoly. Solve for L=lucre.
Restated as 32% of Americans admit they disagree with American copyright law. Passing laws that most people don't agree with causes the people to stop respecting all laws, leading to them not respecting the government. This is a road that eventually ends with the ruling class dying in a violent revolution.
I ask you this: was less leadership ever required? Has a smaller, easier, less bitterly swallowed step ever been contemplated in the annals of the human condition?
On the "eventually" question, do you think before or after the Second Coming? (Name your sect if you wish, bearing in mind that a diligent and exhaustive land-title-search on "eventually" will set you back a king's ransom.)
In the 18th century, mathematicians such as Euler succeeded in summing some divergent series by stopping at the right moment; they did not much care whether a limit existed, as long as it could be calculated.
Likewise, we are less concerned here with whether history repeats itself in practice, than whether we can by facile bloviation declaim it so.
That's BS; most people pirate stuff because they don't want to pay, plain and simple, and for everyone that insists it's only to "try" content, and that they buy it if it's good, they represent a tiny fraction of people, and 99% of the ones claiming it are f#@kling liars.
Yep, that was what I was hinting at -- of course one can not securely interoperate with other services using plain old STMP, but I hoped they would add secure link between any two of their internal customers, with plausible deniability that they ever communicated.
As to "innocence" of metadata, a required (and educational!) read that I am sure you have seen, but others might have not: https://kieranhealy.org/blog/a...
Krebs better be right or Jha will have one hell of a defamation case against him
That would still leave metadata behind -- depending on how exactly this ProtonMail works, it is plausible that metadata between two recipients both using this service would be obscured as well.
"Douchebag weasel" is a frame grab appropriate to people who decided on the school playground how to decide matters, and haven't updated their model since.
The ultimate algorithm (almost an oracle):
Douchebag / not douchebag.
"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll