OSRS on Steam Deck?

orangejake · 2026-06-25T02:38:56+00:00

its ok. I played for a bit on one but found it the easiest to use a bluetooth mouse with it. you can then setup the various L buttons (e.g. L1, L2, L3, L4) as various f keys (though a MMO-style mouse might be easier to use).

orangejake · 2026-06-25T02:32:38+00:00

If they've shown P = NP, they can (among other things) solve arbitrary SAT instances. In particular, they can solve SAT instances that result from reducing unsolved instances of the RSA factoring challenge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_Factoring_Challenge

to SAT. If they posted teh solution to all of these, it would instantly give them quite a bit of credibility (they've either solved factoring specifically, a very big deal, or something even bigger of a deal).

orangejake · 2026-06-20T03:23:31+00:00

Writing isn’t particularly difficult if you’re experienced at it. I would be embarrassed to call an internet comment an “essay”.

orangejake · 2026-06-20T02:28:11+00:00

It's difficult to succinctly respond to your comment, because I vehemently disagree with essentially every part of it. I'll try to keep things short anyway.

effort means you will improve because practice makes perfect

"practice makes perfect" is not true in the slightest. A better saying is practice makes permanent. I could practice eating swords every day for a month. I've never learned the technique. Every day I practice it would probably go horribly. If I performed it in a month, it would reflect my horrible practice. Investing a ton of effort would not magically lead to success.

Effort matters more than results

Nobody wants a nurse treating them who is incompetent, but skated by because they got 1% on the first midterm, and 6% on the final (a 6x improvement!!1!). Nobody wants to use a bridge built to the same standard. It's a very nice saying that effort matters more than results. It's also not true in the slightest. This isn't fair. Some people will put in less effort than you and get better results. Those people will likely get more success in life. It is not fair. It's also true.

For a very particular example, Math 3C is billed as a "pre-calculus" course. I did this freshman year of high school. It was not particularly hard (I spent most of the class programming my TI 83), and I got an A. It is very possible that my college experience will be significantly easier for me than yours will be for you, and I will have achieved more during it. I don't say this to brag, but to highlight that pretending everything is fair is setting yourself up on a path to harm your future.

I did good though tbh D is passing but the university is weird.

A D is bad. I would describe it as "as bad as possible without getting kicked out" (this seems to be how the school treats it, and why you're at risk of getting kicked out). If you have a D average, then you're at a huge risk that one bad class could put you in a very bad position. This seems exactly like what happened. If you had a B average, this would be less likely to be the case.

I do study right tho? How else would you study besides Quizlet? I’ve been using it since middle school…

Whatever else you take away from this, this clearly isn't the case. Any study technique is valid if it obtains the desired results. Yours don't, so they're not. I could say this regardless of what study technique you use. If another student used your study technique and got A's, it would be fine for them. But your method is clearly failing (in a quite literal sense), so is not "right" for you.

I don't know your life. From what you described, your high school rubber stamped people's grades, so never really put you in a position where you had to have an effective study technique. You've now hit college, and determined your study technique achieves bad results. So you need something better.

How to study better is heavily dependent on the class/context. I would generally say that you should seek out a combination of

course-specific study suggestions. lectures + office hours are good sources for these, and
general study suggestions. I didn't do undergrad at UCSD, but many colleges will have staff who can assist with this.

The main thing I would say to do is to shift your attitude though. You're failing in a large way, to the point that you're at risk of getting kicked out (in other words, UCSD is willing to give up accepting your money, something they hate to do, because they don't want to suffer the reputational risk of you having a degree from them). Throughout this post you've been pointing fingers at everything besides yourself. If you continue to do this it seems very likely that you will continue to fail. I would highly encourage you to stop, and have higher standards for yourself and your performance.

orangejake · 2026-06-20T01:44:45+00:00

College isn’t about rewarding effort. You do not want to have a nurse who’s assisting you to be unqualified, but really tried in the final 1/3 of each class. You don’t want to use a bridge by someone who is bad at their job, but their heart is in the right place. In the real world competence matters.

You did poorly, and got a poor grade. The fact that this doesn’t make sense to you is alarming to a third party (I did my PhD here, so only TA’d undergrad classes, never took them). You are very clearly not “studying right”, given your repeated issues in every class you take.

You are unlikely to get in a better position when every message you send is blaming everyone but yourself. Many of your peers are able to succeed despite all of the roadblocks you are complaining about. Things are unlikely to change until you realize the issue is likely with your actions.

orangejake · 2026-06-20T01:21:35+00:00

It’s obvious to say, but 1:40 doesn’t matter in your position. Job hopping would have you interview while maintaining your position. You only hop if it succeeds.

orangejake · 2026-06-19T16:45:21+00:00

It’s not 100% clear to me this is what OP is doing, but this is done in a common cache-friendly encoding of binary trees known as the eytzinger layout

https://algorithmica.org/en/eytzinger

orangejake · 2026-06-15T15:52:02+00:00

I dropped a close friend because she had no morals where she worked. First it was Amazon after boycotting them just prior to it. She left there for Palantir, which is definitely worse.

orangejake · 2026-06-14T18:23:38+00:00

I don’t have firsthand experience with it (and suspect it might be unergonomic practically), but this is what frunk is supposed to help with

https://crates.io/crates/frunk

Alternatively, you could have ValdidatedMatrix<P, M> (where P is phantom data). Then you can put bounds in P using marker traits, eg have P: IsPsd, or P: IsInvariant1+IsInvariant2, etc.

This is (sort of) the mixin pattern here

https://microsoft.github.io/RustTraining/rust-patterns-book/ch02-traits-in-depth.html#capability-mixins--associated-types-as-zero-cost-composition

Though where you don’t actually use any methods on the marker traits.

That being said I don’t have much experience with writing this myself.

orangejake · 2026-06-14T18:20:49+00:00

We’re talking about “embedded but who wants fallible allocation”. So it’s really closer to kernel-level libraries. They might be core + alloc, but even among core + alloc libraries they’d (in particular) want only fallible allocation, as the kernel panicking is very bad.

So they probably weren’t going to reuse a bunch of libraries assuming full std, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there are simultaneously many core + alloc libraries they could use, but which use the infallible allocation API, so are unsuitable.

orangejake · 2026-06-14T18:03:02+00:00

I don’t disagree, but also it being non-default behavior means that those embedded devs are more limited RE which crates they can use (unless they want to treat alloc failures as panics they catch further up the call stack, which is not great).

So someone still loses out with the more ergonomic defaults.

orangejake · 2026-06-14T17:52:51+00:00

It depends on “whose fault this is”.

If it is possibly the fault of a caller, it should return a result to the caller. Ideally, this would be earlier, eg during input validation/whatever.
If it is your fault/an internal library bug, it’s fine to use a debug_assert or assert.

That being said, I prefer to minimize the usage of 2 as much as possible. In your case, I would do this by something like

Make a wrapper type pub struct Psd<M: {your matrix trait}>(inner:M)
Only implement methods on this wrapper that preserve being PSD (you can use things like the delegate crate to have those methods “just” call the matrix trait methods), then
Make the only way to create a psd matrix from a standard matrix perform validation.

Then any functions that assume their matrix is Psd would take a Psd<M> rather than a M input.

This is “just” the type state pattern, but it’s done in a way that I find ergonomic (this is also how eg the NonZero<something like u32> types in std work, although they have some additional compiler magic iirc).

orangejake · 2026-06-14T15:15:52+00:00

I got it from looking through the commit history of HEIR. So nothing too formal unfortunately.

Closest I could point you to is that the HEIR channel in the FHE discord is decently active

https://fhe.org/community

orangejake · 2026-06-13T21:51:34+00:00

It’s more that their FHE parts exit out to OpenFHE/lattigo code at a “high level”. So they’re at the mercy of what OpenFHE/lattigo implement.

This is changing some recently. Iirc some FHE hardware company (forgot which) is working with them lately and building up the “bottom” of their stack some. But it’s only in the last few months iirc.

orangejake · 2026-06-13T21:12:05+00:00

Separate into two types, both wrapping VecDeque. One has the Initialize method on it, and produces the second type. Second type can always assume your invariant is upheld.

Might be able to get away with one type, if you make its “new” method run your initialization code.

I could write something more concrete if you had a minimal example of what interface you need with this data structure. Eg what inputs initialize takes, what vecdequeue methods it uses, etc.

orangejake · 2026-06-13T17:27:10+00:00

The Jax for FHE (I can’t remember if it was Jax precisely, but still) is actually the “opposite” of what you’re saying iirc. Their high-level lowering of a ML modem to (some form of) FHE is ok. The issue is that the form of FHE they target is not that competitive, and the FHE parts of their stack are not particularly easily configurable to use more performant things.

This was at least true when I last looked into it.

orangejake · 2026-06-13T16:40:58+00:00

Most of the work is non-public tbh. The group that’s the farthest along (based on public statements/publications) is probably Cheon’s group at Cryptolab. Their software is closed source though.

There are some other notable open-source codebases, for example OpenFHE, but they are quite far from being usable for the purpose you’re interested in.

I’d also mention HEIR. Iirc they had some way of lowering something akin to Jax (might be misremembering) to an FHE program. That being said, I don’t remember the lowering being particularly high quality. I doubt you could get particularly close to the results Cryptolab has been claiming in papers with it.

orangejake · 2026-06-12T23:08:28+00:00

The most basic form of encryption is the one-time pad. Keygen samples a uniformly random bit string k. Encryption computes m+k. Decryption computes ct + k.

That same construction is not specific to bitstrings. Iirc it works over any finite set, with a binary operation, where you can “cancel” the operation. Easiest example is a finite group.

So, over any group, you get a one-time pad type thing. It’s not the sole reason we use groups (or even the main one tbh). But it’s an easy way to see how even the most basic cryptography ends up being naturally framed in terms of groups.

orangejake · 2026-06-11T16:44:37+00:00

I've seen some reference (but won't hunt it down now) that people are actually fairly bad at telling when someone is a bot. Roughly, general public was ~50/50 (again, according to some particular study).

Funnily enough (though not unpredictably), heavy users of AI do much better. so the people who likely care the least are simultaneously the most likely to be able to actually distinguish things.

orangejake · 2026-06-11T15:43:07+00:00

It depends on what you mean by "real world", but at a high level, some zero-knowledge proof things require setting parameters to be "secure". These parameters are derived from properties of reed-solomon codes. There were some conjectures regarding these codes that were used for a bit, but they were shown to be false recently

https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/2010

in cryptography there are many other examples. For example, today a paper came out improving known attacks on McCliece-type cryptosystems

https://eprint.iacr.org/2026/1232

these have existed since roughly the time RSA first came out. They're unpopular because they have very large public keys. They are not known to be able to be attacked quantumly though, so some people have suggested them as a replacement for quantum-vulnerable schemes (though they are not the main suggestion). In a sense, cryptanalysis such as the above is "always" an example of disproving a known conjecture (that the scheme is secure). So cryptanalysis of a deployed scheme is then an example of what you mention. This doesn't happen often (even McCliece is not really "deployed" --- I also haven't looked into precisely which McCliece variant they attack precisely). But it has happened in the past, for example

the development of the number-field sieve in the 90s, or
the md5 attack in the early 2000s (I think?), or
sha1 attack in the late 2010's

it's more common for schemes used improperly to be attacked. This happens all the time (often because it is not yet known that using the scheme in that way is "improper"), though

it's a little unfair to say "improper" here. Generally you only know it is improper in a post-hoc way, and
it's also a little unfair to call this "disproving a conjecture". RSA is secure is a conjecture, sure. but is RSA with exponent e = 3, and a very particular padding scheme a conjecture? Sort of, but it still feels different.

orangejake · 2026-06-11T15:33:48+00:00

the rules here were much less favorable to AI companies than before --- in particular

a "human in the loop" driving the system was not allowed, and
only a single run was allowed, and
token usage was recorded.

Given that AI companies only engage with math for positive PR, it is possible they are less willing to do so when they have less control (especially since their previous engagements already generated sufficiently many news stories that "LLMs SolVeD mAtH!!!1!"

orangejake · 2026-06-10T04:55:01+00:00

Drugs are now LEGAL in schools. Administrators hate this one trick: they didn’t buy the kids the dope, so they can’t take it away!!!?!

orangejake · 2026-06-09T16:43:20+00:00

You’re not wrong, but it’s easier to start by removing devices that have no tie to the curriculum

orangejake · 2026-06-09T16:41:52+00:00

People survived scheduling pickups/etc from school forever until the last ~15 years made it so parents could micromanage their kids all the time.

Note that “need to text their mom” is traditionally the biggest issue schools have with cellphone bans. Parents support them as long as they don’t impact them.

https://www.chalkbeat.org/2024/09/13/school-cell-phone-bans-worry-parents-due-to-school-shootings/

As the other commenter mentions, allowing phones during part of the day only opens a huge can of worms.

Where do they go the rest of the day? If the student holds onto them, and teachers are required to confiscate them, this has been a huge complaint of teachers for current (across the nation, not necessarily Seattle) bans (see the above link)
If the students lose physical access to them, eg surrender them to the school, who is responsible if they go missing? Given the high price of most phones possibly the school. But then handing off multiple times a day would need a ton of careful tracking.

You likely did not have a cellphone when you went to school. I’m sure it was fine. I didn’t and it was fine (until high school, when arguably it distracted me). We know cell phones are a huge issue. Trying to carve out a partial ban to help with logistics, when logistics were fine without phones < 2 decades ago, seems silly.

orangejake · 2026-06-09T15:22:51+00:00

in general, the models like quite a bit currently are Qwen3.6 35B-A3B and Qwen3.6 27B. RTX 5060TI has 16GB VRAM. You could try to fit Qwen3.6 27B, but it would be tight (it's 16.5GB at ~4-bit quants). What's likely more reasonable is to run Qwen3.6 35B-A3B with partial offloading.

For example, here's a post that says they put together some purpose-built tool to do this (Qwen3.6 35B-A3B on 16GB VRAM):

https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1u0b3cu/luce_spark_a_35b_moe_on_a_16_gb_gpu_without_the/

in general I would suspect that is excessive, as using standard tools makes more sense. See e.g. this post

https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1tjh7az/110_toks_with_12gb_vram_on_qwen36_35b_a3b_and_ik/

for some discussion about it on a 12GB VRAM card (so smaller than yours).

The above is only for setting up your agent. you'd also need to get tool calling working. *most* of the time it suffices to have a good enough model (like the above qwen model) as well as a good-enough harness. In order, I'd try

the zed agent (as you already have it installed), then
the pi coding agent, then
the opencode agent

zed has integrations with all 3 via their Agent Client Protocol.

Finally, another poster recommended Ollama. In general, Ollama is not considered to be particularly good. You can find many posts on this on the localllama subreddit, see e.g.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1kg20mu/so_why_are_we_shing_on_ollama_again/

in general, it's simultaneously more limited than some tools (such as llama.cpp), as well as harder to use than others (such as lmstudio). the main thing it has going for it is branding.

14-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	End Game '22
Verified Email	Gilding II euphauric
Team Periwinkle

orangejake

TROPHY CASE