ohvirginia

That was cool to read your reply. actually looking back over my code, I see my achievement was better than I thought. I only used addition, and rotation. no mult, nor xor.

technically tho rotation can be thought of as including multiplication and xor. but also not. so I don't know.

Nope. I think it's better to start with, This is interesting. then the questions. if you really see problems, state them. lead with engagement not criticism.

Maybe if you had said exactly what now you say your intent was, it would have been clear.

I see Colin is atoning and reforming from even 1 day ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23125032

This is good

To forestall any criticism about the AIR report showing "no effect", you need to know that report did not consider (and was prohibited from considering) operational data, of over 700 missions, 50% of which provided actionable intelligence, and 85% of which had accurate information: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788... (page 8, last paragraph). For additional context of the linked briefing, see: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788...

October is a massive holiday month for China. 10 1 is National Day, Mid-Autumn festival is around that time, and Golden Week is as well. This should not be surprising that work shut down. Lots of people take a break then.

For additional context of this briefing: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788...

Thanks for the explanation. I think the italis is cool and fresh.

hmmm, really interesting how you feel about the names. It sounds like that is super annoying.

I never thought about how naming would affect people invested in the names like this.

I don't think I need to defend it, so I'm not trying to here, just sharing that for me, beamsplitter sounds like such a cool word, as if a beam were a physical thing like a rock that could be split. Also something solid in itself, and connotes advanced, possibly war, tech. lasers. I'll going for that connotation. hash functions are usually very pathetically named.

also there's more to this name in this project because my initial design imagined the "beam" of the input, ricocheting around a network of s-boxes getting mixed. It seemed to me like the perfect hash, aesthetically and efficiently, and universal. but to my disappointment, I couldn't get a pure, s-box only design to work. I had to include some "traditional mixing function hacks" like multiplication, rotation and xor. But I wanted to keep the name because it was aspirational.

I can imagine that it must feel like all these annoying computer software people taking all these names that are not from their area, but from your area, and not leaving anything good for the rest. And when they have such high profile already! Like nobody will listen to the poor physicists, especially once all their names are taken, and then it will be more lonely. A nameless space, with nothing left. Sounds pretty sad.

Funny is for me, it seems physics stands above software, so using such names is a way to increase perceived value. But from your view, software has the higher profile.

Thanks for sharing.

Except for the return to happen when that's true, you'd need an await. At least in JS.

Is this a reference to something?

I sort of get the feeling you're using voice, but you're the one speaking.

I don't get the italics section.

Also are you suggesting I pick another name? It sort of seems like you're replying to a comment, but this comment appears at top level.

If you can explain more I'll appreciate it. Thanks

Also, please suggest a name if that's your thing. I'm thinking 'metahadron' goes with the voice section.

Switched to MIT now

that's a good idea. if you want to post some code turning some historical nist randomness beacon data into 1024 64-bit integers, then test it and run it against smasher using the included utilities script (to run tests in parallel) I'm happy to include the results in the readme.

what would be a better license to use to encourage people to use it?

also good point about CPP I will change that.

I tried to correct spelling errors here but couldn't edit somehow.

this was not meant to create some mystery around the included s-box, though I get that it does do that.

the funny thing is the very fears that are being promoted about this are in a way, sort of exactly the weaknesses that this parameterisible family of hash function was designed to secure against.

I mean people are afraid that there's somehow malevolent design floor but that could be true in any hash function with this you can use the structure to create your own hash function but bringing your nest box which to me at least greatly reduces the idear that there's some sort of exploit that could be persisting.

anyway, that unintended mystery is not bad at all in I'm my opinion. it's fun to watch people suspect byes I got from random.

it's also flattering because I think the skill required to create some sort of crazy exploitable sbox is way above me and way above the level of skill required to create a very good hash function.

people thinking that was my plan, hear this, it does not sound like a very smart plan to spend all that effort creating one amazing exploitable sbox that looks random but then at the same time say and even encourage people to use their own sbox.

I don't feel the suspicion of the sbox being bad actually requires any defense of it, because it seems just ridiculous to me, but I do think it's interesting to point out, like, that sort of a plan suspected doesn't really make sense.

I'm not saying the people who have such suspicions are ridiculous at all. they just haven't thought it through, I think and I understand the instinct to paranoia especially directed at works in this space. I think it's a fairly appropriate instinct. you just need to think things through.

the point was by using an s-box, you can bring your own s-box, to allay (or I guess create) such fears about exploitable designs, and create your own hash function.

some thoughts about how to do that I invite in the readme. I'm not prescribing rules. pick your own, pick whatever you like. The point is you can make your own hash function that will probably be a good hash function. I definitely think you should test it with smasher, or whatever, to make sure it doesn't have any kind of flaws. I'm fairly convinced, after testing a few random boxes, you'll be highly likely to make your own good hashes with this.

I think the really cool thing is to consider whether there exists a clever classical algorithm that uses some sort of anealing approach and some clever hacks based on the structure of integer multiplication to solve the multiplication table in sub exponential time. I like the approach in the paper of moving from binary to blocks, to try to create subproblems.

Since 2012, I've wondered whether creating equivalences between tables in different radices, or using some of the statistics such that any choice of a factor radix unit, limits the possible values of the intermediate products adjacent to it, or that a delta of change in any of the intermediate products would produce a cascade of changes along its intersecting row column, and other things like that, to break the symmetry and kind of hack out a little bit more information.

But circuit sat is not equivalent to solving a multiplication table like this. If you're doing it that way, you're making it way too hard.

Quadratic in size of input is just the multiplication table of the radix units in some base (in their case binary).

It's interesting and I think promising approach to factoring is to use annealing over such a multiplication table trying to resolve the intermediate radix unit products and carries. It's a good way to map the problem to a solution space that is obviously a solution landscape that can be explored.

It's true that the number of variables they end up with is still exponential in the bits of input, but then again, that's not really a problem for true quantum computers.

It definitely seems factorization is closer to being publicly broken.

it seems like it's really hard to be in that position. that must suck. I feel sorry for your that you're having that experience.

please quit your job. it sounds like otherwise you'll hit a crisis point where life comes in and forces you to make a change (like a real accident) if you feel it so strongly that you're having those feelings and thinking about it all the time please just go ahead and quit. It seems like life is giving you the signs and signals.

I know it's a hard time with work right now but sounds like you have some good support networks around you and from my own experience I can recommend working in small hospitality like the people are cool and when it's busy you get to pass the time, even as a waiter in a cafe or kitchen hand or dishwasher. I recommend against a grocery store unless it's a tiny deli or Bodega because you don't just have to work the cashier you have to pack the shelves and it's less engaging for you as a human than working in hospitality I think.

but at this moment maybe that's not the best suggestion. I don't know how you feel about factory work but I guess it's an option anyway best of luck please quit.

you got to honor how you feel about it right? otherwise who else is going to live your life if you don't.

I understand but I think this is wrong. there's a benefit to asynchronous work and having multiple tasks in your queue that you're chipping away at its like the idea of task scheduling on a single processor I just think asynchronous is fundamentally more efficient for humans because they can maximize their productivity per task. And asynchronous "get back to you" allows there to be like a homeostatic equilibrium of priorities and allows everyone everything to get addressed. like hardware interrupts, and giving everyone that power, when it has a knock-on effect as well to whatever you working on it just doesn't make sense to me as something smart. I think it decreases productivity.

I love this. you nailed it. modern tech stack is so bullshit. I won't mention the framework I detest most because that would be flame bait, but this.

Gimme a break. The "problems" you mention in "other comments" come from someone talking about a fiction: War of the Worlds.

But if you're going to discuss the hypotheticals, like why they might visit or reveal themselves or not, I think it's interesting.

Why assume they would just show themselves openly?

Sure, people use the lack of "public open mass contact" to dispute that ETs exist. But that's only 1 theory that fits that data point (but doesn't fit the centuries of accounts, and now video evidence of sky vehicles).

I think it's interesting to consider many other reasons why we have not had "mass open contact":

- humans are idiots and we're not worth the effort. Has a representative of any country ever gone to an ant hill and done an official representation species-to-species? But actually ants are pretty clever, so it does not do them justice.

- maybe they're private and sensitive, and scared of our germs.

- maybe they're just not very sociable. They prefer to stick with their own kind.

- maybe they don't care that it would be a "big thing" for Earth/humanity. To them, using portals to travel the universe is not a big thing.

- maybe they are doing "secret surveillance" to observe the Earth lifeforms and they don't want to distort the data by interacting

- It would mess us up to much. Prime directive.

- Our world government thinks it would mess us up/ mess up the status quo too much, and they negotiated a "stay" on open contact.

- The ETs have no interest in suppressing nor promoting us, they just use Earth/Moon/Solar system as some sort of transit point, and openly revealing themselves would complicate their goals.

- There has been mass contact, in small stages, but it's been so muddied by disinfo and shaming that people think there hasn't been.

You can spend all day thinking about reasons for and against. It's fun, but it doesn't address the video evidence and "contact" accounts. Why not a #"Me Too" moment for UFO contactees? Doesn't everyone have a right to be heard and believed before being subjected to further scrutiny and investigation in order to establish believability?

OSS code here: https://github.com/cris691/servedata