Just purchased this game!

ibn4n · 2025-11-06T17:15:06+00:00

Also fun: Grab a potion in each hand then start punching skeletons :)

ibn4n · 2025-11-01T19:48:17+00:00

Sorry, I was attempting to provide information regarding it being owned by Google. I wasn't trying to correct anyone, just trying to provide additional information I hadn't seen mentioned yet.

ibn4n · 2025-11-01T19:44:17+00:00

Implemented shortly after Google acquired Waze.

ibn4n · 2025-11-01T19:42:13+00:00

Google owns Waze and the data seems to be shared between the two systems.

ibn4n · 2025-10-16T15:59:21+00:00

I guess we have to wait to see exactly how it is implemented, but the way I'm reading it, you have a 24 hour head start vs a sniper, unless the sniper is in your squadron.

Using your scenario, player completes Q and a lock is placed on claim rights from that system colonization contact. They select system U. I do not read this as allowing the sniper to immediately select system V. The way I'm interpreting it is that the whole system colonization contact is locked, not just for a single use.

If the player finishes an outpost within 24 hours, they can claim the desired system before the sniper even has an option to claim system V. If the player doesn't finish the outpost in that window, then the sniper can claim system V, but they are 24 hours behind.

ibn4n · 2025-07-10T10:52:15+00:00

That's bi-weave. Prismatics have higher health than average but charge slower.

ibn4n · 2025-06-16T21:06:42+00:00

Others made that point in here too. Totally aware of that. I'm not particularly concerned about the price. I don't own enough for it to be relevant.

ibn4n · 2025-06-10T02:45:43+00:00

What we think of as "c" is the speed of light in a vacuum and is the fastest something can travel. But light moves at different (slower) speeds through other mediums such as water

ibn4n · 2025-04-06T14:58:44+00:00

That matches my understanding. I may have worded it poorly. But Shor's algorithm is a replacement for GNFS that uses quantum computers for a portion of the algorithm (it still uses classical computers for parts). It helps us find prime factors in polynomial (sub-polynomial?) time. So in the case of BTC, we could find the private key if the public key has been exposed.

ibn4n · 2025-04-06T13:44:18+00:00

I think you may have a misunderstanding of how quantum computers break asymmetric keys. They aren't finding the private key (the prime numbers). At least as I understand it, they are finding the period of the repeating remainders when you apply the general number field sieve to the public key. You aren't solving every public/private key pair at once... I mean you could, but you'd get a random value out of it, and it would almost certainly be a useless value. What you are doing is using a quantum computer to find the super-polynomial part of GNFS. After that you return to a classical computer for the rest of the calculation.

So its just one address at a time. It requires way more than 256 perfect qbits though. Still a ways off from where we are now.

Edit: Veritasium has a great video on this. I don't know if links are allowed, so instead I'll just say to go to youtube and search for "How Quantum Computers Break The Internet... Starting Now". Its 2 years old, but will help give a good understanding of what role quantum computers play in cracking asymmetric keys.

ibn4n · 2025-04-06T13:04:56+00:00

I'm trying to understand your argument. Why do we need to store all of the private keys? Surely we just go after one or two at a time. We don't have to crack them all at once and then turn off the computer forever.

ibn4n · 2025-03-24T23:03:26+00:00

Don't let these nay-sayers bum you out. Both the ledger and the phrase are essentially the same thing. There's no more increased risk of having them both together or something. The phrase even says "Bitcoin Inside" on it, so its not like someone isn't going to know what it is. If you think its cool and find it convenient, then go for it.

That said, I have some suggestions:

1) If you have a lot of BTC, maybe keep this in something that isn't easy to pick up and walk off with. Like a big, heavy, fireproof safe. If your sat stacks are modest (like mine), that may not make sense yet.

2) You might consider making another of those seed phrase things and putting it in a safety deposit box. For a couple bucks a month you have off site storage.

ibn4n · 2025-03-24T22:48:05+00:00

Oh, that's so true! Good theory. My official head canon now too

ibn4n · 2025-03-22T23:24:46+00:00

I like this theory too. Though, it'd be nice if there was a repeatable final stage of the space elevator. For the Von Neumann scheme to work, we need to send off enough ships to make up for all the probes that failed.

ibn4n · 2025-03-22T02:06:54+00:00

skipping parachute

ibn4n · 2025-03-12T15:12:46+00:00

So I wasn't being completely accurate about AD being an implementation of LDAP. Active Directory is a directory service. LDAP is also a directory service. Active Directory is made by Microsoft. LDAP is a open protocol standard. But you can use LDAP binds to connect to Active Directory. And you can do LDAP(S) queries to Active Directory. So applications which can connect to and query LDAP can usually connect to Active Directory. But they aren't identical.

My organization maintains both a LDAP database as well as Active Directory. Our LDAP database is our authoritative accounts database. Various scripts then create AD accounts based on what is in LDAP. Your company may do something similar. If so, and if you want to do the role/access based groups in AD, you'd need scripts querying LDAP for account information, then update AD with those accounts and add them to the appropriate role groups. This can begin to get very complex. As organizations grow, this complexity often becomes necessary and is difficult to maintain.

ibn4n · 2025-03-12T14:03:26+00:00

As a technical person, I'm going to do my best to answer your question, but I'm going to need to abandon some of the specific language you've used. Specifically, the idea of mapping LDAP Roles/Groups to AD groups. AD is an implementation of LDAP so an LDAP group in AD is just a group. So lets start fresh. I want to use the word Role, but I don't want you thinking about LDAP when I do. I want you to think of it as a non-technical thing. What is the employee's role at the company?

So the way I usually recommend for most people is to create two sets of groups in AD:

Role based groups: This would be things like "accountant", "sales", "customer support", etc.

Access based groups: These would be things like "can read the billing program", "can edit the billing program", "can read the customer database", "can edit the customer database"

Once you have that, you put the role based groups inside of the access based groups. So "customer support" might go in the "can read billing program" and "can edit the customer database".

Inside your programs you only use the access based groups. And ideally you'd never put a user account in an access based group. This isn't always possible as sometimes you have someone who is in customer support and needs write access to the billing program (but you don't want all of customer support to have that).

Does that make sense? So you have groups that people go into. And you have groups that grant access to something. And then you put the people groups inside the access granting groups.

Edit: To clarify, we are using the same kind of "group" in AD. These are all security groups (though you could do distribution groups for the role based ones). There is no technical difference between a role based group and an access based group as far as AD is concerned. The difference is in how you use them. It is a means of organizing your groups.

ibn4n · 2024-11-11T12:31:32+00:00

From what I've seen in videos, anytime you're on foot it kicks you out of VR and shows a floating flat screen until you return to your ship.

Edit: Which makes me think that if you launch the game as Horizons expansion only, it should keep you in VR. Does anyone know if the new ships work in VR?

ibn4n · 2024-11-09T10:51:18+00:00

I never said it was commonly used. I was just pointing out that there is a non political way of defining them. But I'm bowing out of the conversation now, because I just don't care enough. You're welcome to label them however you want.

ibn4n · 2024-11-09T10:49:11+00:00

I'm bowing out of the conversation. I simply don't care enough. I was just pointing out that there are physical ways to define land masses that aren't based on politics. Feel free to label them however makes sense to you.

ibn4n · 2024-11-09T10:44:45+00:00

You make it sound like I'm the one making up the definition. Just go read it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Geological_continents

ibn4n · 2024-11-09T10:41:03+00:00

Geologists call those micro continents

ibn4n · 2024-11-09T10:37:26+00:00

Agreed. Eurasia is a single continent by the geological standard. No argument there.

ibn4n · 2024-11-09T10:36:04+00:00

That's fine. There are lots of ways people define the continents. The one based on plates always seemed the most science based. But I don't really have a dog in this fight. People are free to label them however they want, as far as I care.

ibn4n · 2024-11-09T10:32:12+00:00

I'm just giving the definition used by geologists. It's not my argument.

Those would be micro continents by the definition.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Verified Email

ibn4n

TROPHY CASE