Sounds good until (for example) you find out the SSH client library wasn't queueing up packets ahead of time, but instead building them at send time, and a chaff packet takes less time to build than a real packet... so many ways to get side-channeled.
Crypto requires a good source of random entropy. I suppose if you want more traffic for obscurity, you'll also have to find more random bits. Without enough entropy, you'd sacrifice security for obscurity. Just my ¢2, ymmv, etc
Maintaining the shared state with REST calls that overwrite parts of server state is indeed brittle, and really only suitable for overwriting fields on flat data records. It also requires that you consider server-client state coordination with care at all times, and things can easily get out of sync in non-happy paths.
Like you said, building out a CRDT which specifies how updates are coalesced will significantly reduce cognitive burden.
> I'm waiting for the micropayment platform that lets me pay a cent or two per paywalled/ad supported article instead
I hope for this too. The free internet has grown wildly but now that it’s infested with bots that fundamentally cannot be stopped (without onerous Real ID controls at least) I want an alternative ad-free web that charges micropennies per post.
So many different pairs are available. I like Asian corner brackets 「」and French guillemets « ». The angle brackets 〈〉 are popular in CS/math papers I think, though they might be confused with <>.
I have had access to « » before, which led me to doing a double take when I first encountered a << on a work station with font ligatures. It was funny.
Which brings us to the philosophical question about paired characters: If we were to pick paired characters from a key set not available on everyone's keyboard, why must the paired characters even be used in real languages? Is that not actually actively detrimental when we end up needing the characters for real? Is this not why we even have escape characters to begin with?
Plus, must they be a part of anyone's real keyboard to begin with? What makes 「」any more valid than ¿? Could we not have saved ourselves a lot of mental strain if we solved it earlier on with a full set of truly uncommon characters?
I can imagine an alternate history, where some programming language in the late 70's made their editors with simple shortcuts (such as Ctrl+A for "array block") to input barely-if-ever-used yet low code character such as † or ‡, which would never be used outside of a string. And nowadays, with modern IDE's, we wouldn't even see those characters half the time. It would be syntax sugar, with blocks types stated in gutters and data types represented with colors or text.
> These connections result in a triangular array of connected minicolumns with large gaps of unconnected minicolumns in between. Well, not really unconnected, each of these are connected to their own triangular array.
> Looking down on the brain again, we can imagine projecting a pattern of equilateral triangles - like a fishing net - over the surface. Each vertex in the net will land on a minicolumn within the same network, leaving holes over minicolumns that don't belong to that network. If we were to project nets over the network until every minicolumn was covered by a vertex we would project 50-100 nets.
Around this part I had a difficult time visualizing the intent here. Are there any accompanying diagrams or texts? Thanks for the interesting read!
PSA: Try not to chuck 'unsafe-inline' into your Content-Security-Policy thoughtlessly--it disables the anti-injection protections of CSP. There are safe ways to permit inline scripts, if you even need them.
Like the sibling commenter I use Safari for almost everything. It just works and saves more battery than Chrome, plus there's Handoff between phone and laptop.
Quantized 4/5-bit 8b models with medium-short context might be shippable. Still, it’s going to require a nice GPU for all that RAM. Plus you would have to support AMD—I would experiment with llama.cpp as it runs on many architectures.
reply