supernova87a

This is a little bit of a layman's question but maybe someone is interested:

When people go searching for prime numbers / bitcoin with massive compute, I assume that there are huge libraries of "shortcuts" to reduce the searching space, like prime numbers only appear with certain patterns, or there are large "holes" in the number space that do not need to be searched, etc. (see videos e.g. about how prime numbers make spirals on the polar coord. system, etc). I.e. if you know these you can accelerate/reduce your search cost by orders of magnitude.

For whatever various encryption algorithm that people choose to test or attack (like this story), is there somewhere such libraries of "shortcuts" are kept and well known? To reduce the brute force search need?

And is the state of sharing these to the point that the encryption services are designed to avoid the shortcut vulnerabilities?

Was always wondering this.

I just wonder why they choose not to enforce this aspect of it when it can be a significant population (in a statistical sense) of the car traffic as well as revenue. Manhattan inside the highways is a big place.

Maybe it's the cost of the cameras to be installed.

The USA needs to work on:

-- making the cost of employing a good staffing level of police more affordable (so that we can have more, everyday police doing a job as a neighborhood force and seen as a reliable presence against crime)

-- more certain prosecution and penalties for quality of life crimes that we all pay for in seeing petty but significantly confidence-decreasing incidents that reduce our willingness to take public transport

-- reducing the cost / increasing the frequency and usefulness of public transport services where you regard it equally as convenient as private vehicles

You go to some other countries (less rich ones particularly) and buses have 2 crew, trains have multiple staff, taking fares, making sure rules are obeyed. Giving people confidence that this is something they want to ride on. Not a system where it looks like the station is half abandoned, was last cleaned about 2 years ago, and if you were mugged or even just reported a crazy ranting homeless person, they would shrug and tell you to phone it in.

What I am interested to know but cannot find is:

Are there are cameras inside the zone tracking cars to bill them if you are already in the zone, or if cameras only track entry to the zone? (i.e. cameras only on the border). If someone happens to evade the cameras, do they catch them eventually just by traveling within the zone? I believe London for example has internal zone cameras.

The purpose being, first of all, to ensure that people do not somehow evade paying just by operating solely within the zone, defeating the purpose of reducing traffic. And secondly, to stop people from engaging in loophole seeking behavior.

I hope that loopholes and people defrauding the system (license plate obscuration, etc) are quickly caught and penalized. You would hope that if a car enters or is detected with invalid plates, it triggers an automatic report to police nearby to follow up. Otherwise, like so many things (it seems now) we just throw our hands up at people who evade the rules and charge those who follow them. (my comment spurred by an NYT article about how people might scam the system)

I remember hearing that the Susan B Anthony dollar coin failed because there was no extra position in the coin drawer of cash registers to put it in. Can you image if every cash drawer now has to be redesigned to have different sized bills?

(I know, I know, it's not actually that big a deal. The drawers have removable inserts, but you get the point of it.)

(actually, on second though, automatic bill readers in vending machines, etc. would need a big retrofitting, that's probably much more a big deal).

It is already big a deal to change the images on currency (no matter what country). Given the US dollar is viewed as somewhat of a standard, you can imagine that to change its size/shape would be quite difficult to generate enough political enthusiasm for.

I'm not condoning some of that in recent rulings. But also ask yourself, is this the first time you noticed it, and that wasn't happening for rulings over the past 20 years for cases where you happened to agree with the outcome? Only sudden interest in applying that principle now, I guess?

Yes, of course what you quote is true -- more resources favors large entities and corporations. Similarly for example, the rich versus poor when appearing before the legal system. That is a deep problem of democracy + capitalism.

But if the desire is to reduce the influence of money in politics and the weight of corporations in our lives, that is something for Congress and our laws to be modified to do. Similarly to decide to tax, redistribute, or equalize the playing field between rich or poor. You would not have a court decide what tax policy to enact, or what the thresholds of welfare or social security brackets are. Courts are to resolve concrete disputes between individual parties using principles derived from the law, not promulgate new laws.

Courts have to treat people and entities coming before them in cases as equal parties, based on their arguments and evidence. If the side of corporations have more resources to pursue cases, hire lawyers, and fabricate evidence, etc. than individuals, then that's something for Congress and laws to fix. Courts are not here to somehow say that when there's a dispute, individual people's arguments take precedence over a corporation's when the law is clear about enumerated rights or regulations. Or to say a general policy principle like "people's rights trump corporations' rights". That is not a justiciable statement.

The relative rights of people versus corporations is where laws should lay out those definitions, in the places and applications where the theoretical becomes the real. Not for courts to create novel rights that are not subject to the democratic process and checks/balances on such important questions. Or if they're not specified in the Constitution.

Thanks for your comment, and this is a reply to others who have replied.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the courts are doing a great job. But they are doing their job to interpret the laws that have been written. Far more conscientiously than the political branches. Interpretations of the law are yes, sometimes interpretations that may favor one side over another, because laws are not always clear down to the very last edge case or issue that was not anticipated at their writing, and high level principles (sometimes laws have to be at this level) can be interpreted different ways. If that were not true, then you would hardly need a judiciary. That is their role.

But to say that the judicial system has been corrupted and is biased, only because in recent years has made more rulings against "my side" when the issue is not clear cut, is to undermine one of the institutions that takes its job relatively seriously. If we adopt this perspective, why are Republican/MAGA opinions that the judicial system is corrupt because they got ruled against so many times, not equally legitimate? Who is to decide that your saying the system is biased is more worthy than theirs?

How can we sustain a system where if the rulings go my way, then the system = trustworthy? A key distinguishing aspect of an advanced democratic society (cf. January 2022) is the acceptance of rulings and elections that don't go your way. And that courts rule based on law.

Many of the things that laws were originally written for are not covering the situations that are arising now. If you want to make the outcome different, go and change the laws and make it clear what the rules should be. Update them for technology developments, for changes in societal expectations. There is a mechanism for that. And the judiciary will have to adhere to the laws and Constitution to rule on them.

Courts are not equipped to be legislative bodies, and if you put that expectation on them, you are changing their scope and role. And not for the better. Judges will get elected for their favoring of one side over another, or to be writing laws while ruling on cases. That's not something I want our democracy or separation of powers system to start doing.

And if Congress is broken, that reflects the troubling divisions we have in society -- no court will be able to fix that (without actually corrupting what the courts are for).

Are you saying that you believe our judicial system is fair and impartial only when it rules in your favor?

I vaguely recall a similar sentiment: "the system is been rigged because I didn't win!"

Courts rule on laws. If you don't like the laws, go and seek to change them. Don't cast suspicion on our judicial system, one of the reputable institutions that takes the time and effort to study facts and uphold our rights when we need them the most, because it didn't go your way on a topic of net neutrality. NN is hardly a long settled human right that you can declare it an injustice if the US turns out not to apply it in a certain way, and you're turning a ruling on whether the FCC is the proper mechanism for regulation into "the system is corrupted".

Consider applying principles of government that don't shoot yourself in the foot if the other side takes power. It's one of the few things that sets us apart from less civilized countries.

"For Christ’s sake, you people made me get rid of my peanut farm before you let me be president."

https://theonion.com/you-people-made-me-give-up-my-peanut-fa...

In this video of the plane going along the runway, it just seems to me it's going very fast well into a no-gear landing. Like they didn't set it down for more than half the runway (and the runway was 9200 feet)

https://x.com/BNONews/status/1873174704720425440

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muan_International_Airport

The thrust reversers are open though? (maybe?)

Fun to imagine on geophysical length scales that each dot of gold-sulfur rich complex in the diagram could represent like several orders of magnitude more gold than has ever been mined out of the Earth to date.

(No idea whether that is the right sizing, but I could totally imagine it being the case)

edit:

"...The estimated amount of gold ever mined is around 212,582 tonnes, according to the World Gold Council. This is roughly equivalent to a cube of gold that's about 22 meters on each side..."

https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/how-much-gold

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-gold-has-been-found-world

Here's some more examples of exactly that complexity:

https://imgur.com/a/Qzy46WV

https://imgur.com/a/7UtQnMF

I will say this though --

Japanese companies and organizations (and people) love diagrams to present to the public. Whether how to navigate a website, book a ticket, check-in to a hotel, etc. the number of process diagrams in daily life (as a perceived effective way of communicating information) is unseen outside Japan.

Also, the amount of highly detailed posters in public places. For example, the departures board of a train line -- far more information than probably the average US rider knows how to comprehend even. Or is interested in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stem-and-leaf_time_tabl...

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/rqaoj3/the_crazy_t...

You have to wonder whether this generates a tolerance or expectation that detail is expected to be understood.

I'm not really going to spend any more time coming back here for discussion, as it has become uninteresting.

You're clearly an advocate for a side of the argument, not an objective analyst interested in finding out truth. And btw nothing "surprises" or "shocks" me, I have been watching this issue for quite a while and have some expertise in the matter.

You live in past rulings hoping that it means that your position is correct in the present. It is not, and that colors your analysis, which as a result isn't credible or interesting to discuss.

It might be good to follow your own advice and read legal judgements more carefully.

The company doesn't have to do anything. And certainly not actively provide employees with tools to engage in union organizing communications amongst themselves. That's laughable, I'm surprised you believe it.

The ruling is that companies can restrict employees from using the company's assets to communicate about union activities, if they have other means to do so. Employees generally have other means to do so. That is light years different from "the company must provide some means of doing this".

You seem a bit lost within your advocacy / desire for something to be true, and unable to discern fact from hope. You would be more credible if you could separate your wishes from what is the law.

I'm stating facts within the law. You are stating wishes, made unbelievably clear by your saying that I'm trying to get you to side against your data and interests.

Laws don't operate by saying that "unions are beneficial to society and to me" and so therefore it must mean that you're allowed to use other people's equipment to do what you want. Once you bring in that argument, it's clear you've lost.

I guess it's true: "don't argue facts against a man whose livelihood depends on ignoring them."

You need to gain a more educated understanding of the law and what your rights are, and are not.

A right to do something does not extend to taking over someone else's means to do it. You are free to talk to someone in person about your wages. You are not free to use my equipment to do it. Or to bill me for your time spent discussing it. By your logic, a union organizer should be entitled to photocopy union organizing fliers on a company copy machine.

But you are not.

Just because you feel it is and you want it to be true, doesn't make it so. It's important to learn to separate advocacy of a position from your analysis of facts. Work-related communications are generally at the decision of the employer, not the employee.

https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/...

Nope.

https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/...

Employees are free to speak to each other about pay and work issues. Apple isn't obligated to help facilitate that over company-owned channels that are for work communications.

edit: I'm not going to delete this idea just because people who want a thing to go their way disagree with it. And it's not right that this opinion has been flagged.

Wow, I honestly was not intending to click through and pay much attention to TFA, but I pressed "play" just to see, and I was honestly immediately hooked.

Maybe because I'm saturated with LLM stories, and yet another summarization use case, blah blah blah.

There is something fascinating here to me that two (synthetic) people talking to each other engaged my attention, and then amazement that they were turning this esoteric paper into a radio show at the popular level. (or for any paper whose content would never actually warrant two real people making a radio show about it, if you could even pay them to do so) Maybe an aspect of it is that if two people are talking about something, it inherently has passed a filter that "it might be interesting" to know about.

Surprisingly eye opening about the technology here.

The positive aspects described in the story are all fine and nice.

You just have to know that the author almost certainly left out the heavy downsides of the journey, which would have been the totally unpredictable, frustrating, hours-long (maybe even good-part-of-a-day) delays along the route where Amtrak is stuck waiting for freight trains on rails that it does not own.

Unfortunately a few hours of scenery isn't worth the overall frustration at the state of US rail in my opinion.

I am no expert in hydrogen fuel cells and am interested to know. Do fuel cells deliver enough instantaneous power that batteries do, for the weight of all the associated equipment? Certainly the power density of the fuel is high, but given all the membranes, plates, etc. (all the "bubbling chemistry that has to happen"), how is the power delivery per hardware weight? Sometimes I imagine that exploding hydrogen in an engine (if it were possible) would be more power dense than sending it through fuel cells.

(as I said I'm clearly no expert about fuel cells)

And separate minor point, while it's pointed out as a novelty, I somehow doubt the composite construction is really targeted at anti-corrosion (I mean it might contribute a little on this front I guess). Corrosion issues in seaplanes are well understood for 50+ years, right? It's for the weight savings mostly.

Hah, if that's true, they both got burned to the tune of $5B each, I'm sure. So not much payback achieved.

And inside the company, everyone can see that it's an embarrassing loss of interest from MZ after 2 years of urgent enthusiasm that didn't pan out. On to LLMs now!

Our governmental methods of punishment for corporations strike me as lacking. This seems similar to Wells Fargo, where ok, the company was fined, sued, made to pay restitution (somewhat) to victims. But underlying it all, the culture and incentives at the company that produced the situation didn't get fundamentally changed. Which often perpetuates across specific leaders, boards, and is a part of what a company is -- and doesn't just get replaced by removing one or two people.

What does it take? You have to dismantle a company before it changes these kinds of deep-rooted issues? Or can a government penalty call for that? That is hard to achieve. Who's going to change the evaluation procedures that HR has in place to measure what rating or bonus you get this year? That seems to me as important as who is CEO.

None of the penalties courts mete out (short of dissolution/fined into bankruptcy) seem to be able to achieve this level of change needed.

Education is clearly a path to increased prosperity for many people, and they will pay a lot for education to try to distinguish themselves. And when it's nearly an expectation, it's not a completely voluntary purchase (like healthcare), so demand is quite inelastic and people will pay what is charged. (And also it is a spending choice at quite an early age when people are not great at thinking about whether taking on debt is a smart choice, etc)

My theory is that as our society matured, people/companies/institutions gradually figured out that education was something that they could extract value ($) from and take a cut out of. (Whether that is just blatant profit, or using the money to invest in education-related things, or even less insidious semi-reasonable employment of lots of people in that industry to benefit off of it. A gradual creeping up of somewhat well-intentioned desire to turn it from classes in just-good-enough lecture halls into polished buildings that need endowments and administrators to oversee.)

The problem is when goods that are pretty mandatory to succeed in life get turned to the for-profit market to be solved, of course prices will go up.

What we are increasingly failing at is to offer enough seats at high quality educational institutions at affordable prices. That's how you get out of this.

Oh, I thought the article was going to talk about the fiasco with the FAFSA application redesign. In which case my observation was going to be, people in charge of things at the top lately seem to have almost zero idea of what actually needs to happen at the working level of their organizations.

It seems to be a general theme these days in government, business, a lot of things.

Yet they are not unhappy to the point that they refuse the money coming from this.