povik

Well it's marketing but a descriptive one, so I am okay with playing along.

But then again there is a mechanism already, just not cryptographic, and that is police having to physically seize your device. I guess we don't need to work on this. There's nothing special about an E2E communication device compared to other things you may have in your home.

I would especially like to see a cryptographic mechanism enforcing such middle ground. That is, a mechanism that would allow law enforcement accessing the private key or plain text, but only with some inescapable side effect which would hinder abusing that power. That may be producing a cryptographic "proof of compromise" for the person being spied on, or the spying being publicized, possibly with some delay, or something else. I am searching for an analogue of having police show up for a home search, which would notify both you and your neighbors, and cannot be done sneakily and by-the-book at the same time.

Are there some interesting candidates for such a mechanism? At first is sounds like a long shot, but there are cryptographic mechanisms achieving unintuitive results, so it may very well be possible.

How can you know that such an impulse is part of some country’s national culture?

I sometimes think about what sets successful and less successful countries apart, and how profound an effect can cultures have. Assuming that smart people are born everywhere at similar rate, and disregarding unfree societies with authoritative regimes or paralysing religious dogmas, I would naively expect similar outcomes among countries. I would like to know to what degree can the observed difference be attributed to culture, but I guess I will never know.

I have wondered about the same.

I see. But then again I am a bit confused by this text in the report on digital euro[0], which was recently posted on HN.

“While the Eurosystem would always retain control over the issuance of a digital euro, supervised private intermediaries would be best placed to provide ancillary, user-facing services and to build new business models on its core back-end functionality. A model whereby access to the digital euro is intermediated by the private sector is therefore preferable.“

That sounds like a bank to me. But I guess it must be so that the relationship between the central bank and intermediary will be different.

I struggle to find the defining features of these CBDCs so that it is more than empty branding. I guess you might sum it up as “bringing the central bank and currency-users closer thanks to modern technologies”?

[0] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/html/digitaleuro-report.en.ht...

Are these proposed central bank “digital currencies” anything more than a centralised or federalised database of who-owns-how-many?

And if so, how does that differ from what we have now? That is, in a European country, I have an account with my bank, and my bank has an account with the central bank (or the two interact in some other way).

My understanding of the current system is limited, I merely know some large portion of the issued currency today is without physical representation.

It seems like I was missing the fact that the resistance caused by a ferrite bead is imposed on the sum of currents going through the bead. That means opposite currents on a pair of wires are unaffected, as long as both the wires go through the bead.

If I understand it right, in the example of clamping a serial line under a monitor, the wires will exhibit higher resistance at higher frequencies, thereby less current flows at higher frequencies. Less high-frequency current in the serial line means less radiation and less interfering current induced on wires inside the monitor.

Wouldn’t that be to detriment of signal integrity on receiving end of the serial line? Is it so that only higher harmonics are affected, which is okay?

Why did I hear putting ferrite on USB cable will improve signal integrity? Is that nonsense?

Thanks. What I didn’t realize is that although the sum is done precisely, the resulting 0.3 will be represented approximately once converted to float64. In the first case formatting hides that, in the last it doesn’t.

In the Go example, can someone explain the difference between the first and the last case?

I am afraid you misunderstood. OP's point isn't that it's unsupervised learning, hence not ML. His point is that it's no learning at all. IMHO.