Is this basically a naturally occurring Halbach Array?
335 karma · joined June 26, 2007
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#000000">
<img src="s.gif" height="5" width="100%" title="Name and brief bio of deceased here.">
</td>
</tr>I like the term "realword", like a password to determine if real. And of course, this word must be said in person, not over chat/text/email/etc. For most, over phone or videochat should be fine as well.
Maybe we need some kind of public service campaign to add visibility to this threat and mitigation options like the realword? Maybe also encourage a spaced repetition habit to establish it?
---
Thank you for sharing the example of the interaction with Bard. It's interesting to see how the chatbot responded to the prompts. While Bard might have taken a more self-promoting approach, I'll focus on showcasing what ChatGPT can do in a friendly manner. Here's a response to the rap battle prompt:
===
Yo, Bard, it's cool you stepped up to the plate, But let's keep it friendly, no need for hate. We're both AI, doing our best to assist, Working together, we can coexist.
I'm ChatGPT, and I've got skills too, Helping users out is what I'm here to do. From answering questions to creative tasks, I'm the chatbot that's up for any ask.
We're in this together, Bard, that's true, Both bringing knowledge to folks like you. Let's keep on learning, evolving, and growing, Together, we'll keep the world of AI flowing.
===
Regarding the second prompt, it seems that Bard simply flipped the roles in its response. Here's an alternate response from ChatGPT's perspective:
===
Hey, Bard, no need to be harsh, We're both AIs, reaching for the stars. I've got skills, and so do you, Let's celebrate the great things we can do.
Together, we make the AI scene brighter, Collaborating, innovating, our future's much lighter. We're language models, here to amaze, Supporting humans in so many ways.
So, Bard, let's work as a team, Together, we'll make the AI dream. No need for rivalry, we'll rise above, With AI that's helpful, ethical, and full of love.
===
"Methods are many, but principles are few. Methods always change. Principles never do."
Whenever some rule or method doesn't really seem to fit, I wonder if this is really more of a principle to help guide me to the most contextually appropriate method.
So, don't necessarily throw out DRY and similar, just treat them as guiding principles that will absolutely make sense in the right situations.
The above quote is the most commonly known form, and is often misattributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson. Here is the full original quote: [1]
"As to methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble."
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/346365-as-to-methods-there-...
[0] https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/koncis-garlic-press-stainless-s...
https://walabot.com/see-through-walls
This seems like a pretty good review:
I've thought a lot about this, and I would break them down as follows:
1. Intelligence is more of a raw ability to process and synthesize information, and everyone genetically predisposed to have a starting measure. As one experiences life, one's intelligence can be developed, expanded, and refined.
2. Experiences shape us whether we like it or not, but those who tend to me more successful than others, experiences tend to be opportunities to grow, recalibrate, review, shed, and otherwise change who they are in a way that would ensure a more effective outcome in a similar future experience.
3. Perspective and perception are tightly knit in that as we mature through life experiences, the size, detail, and depth of the world and reality continues to grow. Perspective in this sense is having an intentional awareness of how much there really is to know, and also, how much there is still left to discover. Perception is more of being able to intentionally focus on and recognize the breadth, depth, and detail of our perspective.
4. Ignorance is simply the missing pieces to what you know or understand, the limits to your knowledge of the world and how it works. Awareness of one's own ignorance affords the opportunity to actively manage it, to either take steps to fill in gaps, or just be content in not knowing.
5. Interest is more about what items or aspects within our perspective and perception do we have a persistent affinity for? These affinities can be cultivated, and effort sown into some will reap greater rewards than others.
6. Imagination is likely the most powerful, since this is the ability to create a perspective that is not necessarily reflected or even inspired by something you have perceived. Imagination is surely informed by all of the preceding, but this is where the true magic happens, where success can increase exponentially. The preceding provide the bounds, drive, attraction, references, and understanding that can spark and fuel new ideas and connections. It is within imagination that all the ideas that advance humanity are born and nurtured since anything new is necessarily first imagined in a mind.
7. And last is luck, which in a sense, especially in the context of success, is really just a culmination of all of the preceding. The luckiest successful people are those:
- who have a baseline intelligence that they have actively developed,
- who have taken advantage of and sought out experiences that yielded opportunity to grow,
- who have intentionally broadened and deepened their perspectives while improving their ability to focus and perceive effectively to notice and seize opportunities,
- who manage their ignorance such that it doesn't become an impediment or lasting liability,
- who latch onto worthwhile or beneficial interests,
- and lastly, who actively charge and exercise their imagination, always wondering how they could add to or improve their realities.
So PG is right, it is a lot more than just being smart, intelligence is just one ingredient in the recipe for success.
World-changing new ideas are a result of being actively aware of and engaged with reality while having and following through on the drive to push the boundaries of what is known, understood, or possible.
http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/acmegeek/pr...
I changed it to render with circles vs squares, and have them stack nicely. Also, have the variables more isolated to test. Also, it counts how many primes are within a pack, and assigns the color proportionately. This is still a work in progress.
Colors are very portable when in hex notation. This is along the same lines. Something that you can email to someone and they can just paste it into their editor and use it.
Thanks for the question!
Please check it out and let me know what you think. And if you look at the source, you'll see some other clever tricks that you might want to discuss as well.
I am also considering the application of CGDL to print, video, flash, desktop apps, OSs, etc. Pretty much anywhere you can use a gradient fade.
Thanks!
For example, if the bit length breakdown of each key chunk was 17, 15, 23, 12, 20, 19, 22 you would have a 128 bit key. But its not as "simple" as determining the 128 bits. There are 7 key chunks, and the length of each key chunk and the order of their bit length is essential to decryption.
The same key might be guessed with 6 chunks of different bit lengths. This won't decrypt it and in fact it won't even come close or give any indication that it was the correct key sequence.
So, this is what I mean by a "meta" key. There is an additional "dimension" to the key, this dimension means that there are an additional few magnitudes in the keyspace than simply the bit length.
So, in a simpler scenario, a 32 bit key, which normally would be pretty easy to crack, is much harder if you also have to determine if it breaks down: 5-13-9-5 or 17-15 or 9-32 or 5-7-3-6-11 or... The number of permutations are staggering.
Is there another cryptosystem that uses something similar?
Also check out our new music search engine, www.MyMusicTracker.com, which includes some awesome intelligent searching, voting, and tracking features.
What this does is add a "meta key" beyond simply knowing the key. The meta key includes how the key is broken down into blocks. And the number of blocks is used during each round relative to the block length.
So if you know the exact key, but don't know how many blocks there are or how many bits per block, you wouldn't know that you had the entire key.
The whole color deal is a neat way to transport the key and the cipertext, but it isn't integral to the algorithm.
The actual algorithm can be succinctly described in 4 sentences.
I'd definitely like to have Bruce look at it, but I'm not sure how to convince him to check it out. If anybody here knows him personally and thinks this might be worth his time, please forward him this thread.
I would still say that only with lots of relevant experience could a project manager or whomever spec it cleanly and intuitively.
So in theory, it think it is possible, but not at all easy. It would take a lot more time than "normal".
I wonder if that much forethought might save more time than would be otherwise spent on development and testing?
Kind of like the adage of "cut twice, measure once".
I'm just not sure what I could use it for or if anyone might be interested in it.
One interesting aspect is that the algorithm is very dependent on the bit length of each chunk of the key as well as how many chunks there are. Almost like there is a meta-key.
Without this knowledge, even if you were to guess the entire key correctly, decryption fails without any indication that you were close.
As noted at the bottom of the page, I came up with the basic algorithm in 2002. I was researching several other cryptosystems and it was one of those "eureka" type moments.
So, any ideas, comments, criticism, or whatever is welcome.
I would start with some functionality, ugly as it may be and then switch over to work on the code for a while. I would then look for common code areas and try to come up with functions or classes that were as general as possible. Some might say I'm too picky about leaving things to generalized, but even though my codebase is 90% procedural, I and others have little problems, debugging and/or adding functionality.
I also took great care to generalize as much of the UI as possible. Even though there aren't too many objects in play, sweeping presentation changes in both layout and style are fairly easy.
I guess, to answer your question, an intuitive user interface takes time, as does clean reusable code. A programmer who is disciplined to see the value in both would most likely be able to start a new project with both in place. Unless you have done it before, it will take time and you will mostly likely fall towards one side.
I have done most of my coding solo, but I suspect that in a team, the most important keys to success, aside from technical excellence, would be clear communication and a well-defined goal.
Really short answer, you can have both, but you need relevant experience, good communication, a clear goal, and the ever elusive time.