bmandale

As I explain, you can't perfectly reverse these filters because of quantizing. The more the signal is attenuated, the more information is lost when quantizing. So yes, it does matter what your kernel is.

> This nets us another original pixel value, img(8).

This makes it all seem really too pat. In fact, this probably doesn't get us the original pixel value, because of quantizing deleting information when the blur was applied, which can never be recovered afterwards. We can at best get an approximation of the original value, which is rather obvious given that we can vaguely make out figures in a blurred image already.

> Nevertheless, even with a large averaging window, fine detail — including individual strands of hair — could be recovered and is easy to discern.

The reason for this is that he's demonstrating a box blur. A box blur is roughly equivalent to taking the frequency transform of the image, then multiplying it by a sort of decaying sin wave. This achieves a "blur" in that the lowest frequency is multiplied by 1 and hence is retained, and higher frequencies are attenuated. However, visually we can see that a box blur doesn't look very good, and importantly it doesn't necessarily attenuate the very highest frequencies by much more than far lower frequencies. Hence it isn't surprising that the highest frequencies can be recovered in good fidelity. Compare a gaussian blur, which is usually considered to look better, and whose frequency transform focuses all the attenuation at the highest frequencies. You would be far less able to recover individual strands of hair in an image that was gaussian blurred.

> Remarkably, the information “hidden” in the blurred images survives being saved in a lossy image format.

Remarkable, maybe, but unsurprising if you understand that jpeg operates on basically the same frequency logic as described above. Specifically, it will be further attenuating and quantizing the highest frequencies of the image. Since the box blur has barely attenuated them already, this doesn't affect our ability to recover the image.

All type checkers either permit incorrect programs, reject correct programs, or are turing complete.

That's not the only way to protect yourself from accusations of copyright infringement. I remember reading that the GNU utils were designed to be as performant as possible in order to force themselves to structure the code differently from the unix originals.

click fraud consists of the person who runs a website themselves clicking, running bots to click, paying someone else to click, etc ads on their own website. it becomes fraud first because they have contractually agreed not to do that, and second because they are materially benefiting from it. an unaligned third party clicking (etc) on ads has neither of those conditions being true, and hence isn't fraud or otherwise illegal.

Many reactors can be updated to last longer than their initial design lifetime. This is usually far cheaper than building a new reactor. I expect that if the political environment in germany was more conducive to nuclear, that is what they would have done.

macs are the hipster variant of lenovo.

The only way to protect against that is if a secure application boundary is enforced by the operating system. You can make it harder for other programs to uncover secrets by encrypting them, but any other application can reverse the encryption. I don't believe using the tpm meaningfully changes that situation.

If windows is encrypted with keys from the TPM anyways, then tailscale doesn't need to encrypt a second time.

Windows also bit me in the ass with this feature, but tailscale not enabling encryption wouldn't have helped one iota.

> The rationale for this prohibition of insider trading differs between countries and regions. Some view it as unfair to other investors in the market who do not have access to the information, as the investor with inside information can potentially make larger profits than an investor without such information.[2] However, insider trading is also prohibited to prevent the directors of a company (the insiders) from abusing a company's confidential information for the directors' personal gain.

Well, there you go. Any more questions?

I believe certain european countries have or had free universities which instead filter students with incredibly difficult courses. Thousands might enter because both tuition and board are free and they would like a degree, but the university ensures that only a small group make it to second year. I believe the filtering is less intense in later years, since the job has already been done by that point.

You have totally misunderstood what the person you are talking with means by unsafe. Perhaps you should resolve that prior to such condescensions.

Insider trading consists of an individual who is an insider to a company that is publicly traded, trading stock in that company on information they obtained as an insider.

> When Warren Buffett decides that he wants to buy stock in a company, he knows that if this became public, the target company's stock would go up.

Warren Buffett is not a publicly traded company, and in this hypothetical he is buying stock in another company, which (by assumption) he has no insider information about.

> Insider trading law in the US is about breaching fiduciary duty.

This is false. It's about protecting traders. This is why it applies specifically to publicly traded companies. If it was about protecting shareholders (from what?) then it would apply to all companies.

Prices are not an end to themselves. Prices are useful because they tell you how much something is worth. If you're trading against somebody who has more information than you, than you are probably losing money, since they wouldn't be making the trade otherwise. Yes, insider trading means that prices will converge on a more accurate value faster, but in the interim anyone trading on the stock is getting screwed. Insider trading is not good for anybody but insiders.

This is begging the question. Games on linux lack kernel anticheat because linux isn't very popular. Once linux is popular enough, then they will figure out a way to do anti cheat on it in a way that they consider acceptable. Valve already considers VAC good enough, because they want to support linux. Anti cheat on windows works the way it does because that's what's available on windows, on linux they'll figure out some other way.

You could, I dunno, trust your son, communicate with him, and let him make decisions for himself? If instead of wasting all your time on scam products trying to isolate him from the world, you'd spent the same time teaching him to navigate the world, you wouldn't have had any problems, and he would be better prepared for adult life when he doesn't have someone breathing down his shoulder. Just my 2c.

The checked variant just calls the unchecked, and the panicking variant calls the checked variant. They all need to call unsafe code. See here for details: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/borrow-splitting.html

Adafruit sells raspberry pis. This is a blog post not a news article.

If people see it in the url bar and copy paste it from there. In the case of images if they "copy image url".

Sure, except I doubt most people want to uglify all their urls with extensions for occasional alternates. Plus, if the url with the extension gets past around instead of the original (as would inevitably be done) you're back to square one.

I had thought about recommending that people just use an alternate link as intended, to point to an alternate format. I think that would work best using existing web standards as intended, but it has the downside of initially serving the original format regardless of the content type.

I would say "vary" is the wrong way to solve that problem. The issue is that there can easily be a bunch of stupid inconsequential differences between accept headers, far beyond simply asking for type x versus type y. Slightly different priorities, order, including an extra mime in the list, putting some irrelevant format nobody uses first just in case, etc.

An optimal solution would involve: the response listing which alternate content-types can be returned for that endpoint, the cache considering the accept header, if it sees a type from the alternates list higher in the accept header priority than whatever it has in cache, then it would forward the request to the server. Once it had all the alternatives in cache, it would pass them through according to the accept without hitting the server.

The closest existing header to the above would be the link header, if you give it rel=alternate, and type as the mime type. It's not clear what href you would be, since it usually is to a different document, but we want the same url but a different mime type. So clearly this would be an abuse of the header, but could work.

> Even if that was relevant, it's not true.

It is true and your own comment is a restatement of what I said. It's even obviously true, why would you pick a fight over this? You said "even if that was relevant" why not argue that instead?

Point is, a blockade in and of itself is an act of war, and will get the corresponding response. You cannot hope to just starve them out. You can go full ham if you'd like, but that will also get a corresponding response. If you just want "a bit" of war, then you need to leave them an out.

All moot now, as anyone could have predicted, but it was fun to think about.

If they go bankrupt, then they start using russian missiles to blow up US aircraft carriers. This is a war that neither side wants to win.

The president they created was one who administered over a much more limited government, one that primarily collected taxes and waged wars. Both were done at the behest of congress, so there was limited independence in how it was done. In the interim, federal agencies with a far greater impact on people's daily lives were created, on the assumption that they could be run according to policies set out by congress, and hence not completely upend people's lives on the whim of a single partisan elected official.

Kana input exists in japanese and reuses each letter of the keyboard to mean a different kana. So you could have a similar confusion in japanese. I believe many older people use it.

Difficulty of building your own cms they didn't mention: choosing fonts that don't suck.

Seriously though what a weirdly defensive article.

This replacement has already happened. Everyone who can has long since replaced their phone support with a set of menus that end in "use the website". When you need to talk to the human you still need to talk to the human.

>One can argue this is a positive, as a customer if I can push a few buttons and issue a voice command to an AI to fix my problem instead of waiting on hold, that is a net positive.

If you could do it through the website then you would be much happier than having to argue with a chatbot. And if you can't do it through the website, there aren't going to let a robot do it on your behalf.

This is an incredibly common misuse of the term e2ee. I think at this point we need a new word because you have a coin flip's chance of actually getting what you think when a company describes their product this way.

If you like deleting all your files, sure. LLMs, especially small ones, have far too high a propensity for consequential mistakes to risk them on something like that.