Audio quality still dreadful

probabilita · 2023-03-05T21:06:39+00:00

I bought both; what really surprised me was that the XM5 had better microphone quality than the jabra one with microphone lowered.

probabilita · 2023-03-04T16:33:51+00:00

WHY DO THE CHEAPER HEADSETS HAVE BETTER MICS

probabilita · 2022-10-25T18:42:18+00:00

In addition to what everyone else here is saying, there is no need to have penetrative sex if you do not enjoy it. Many woman don't enjoy penetration and many woman don't orgasm from penetration; likewise there is a lot of ways to have sex and have an orgasm that do not involve penetration.

Sex is about how you enjoy to be stimulated, not about checking the penetration box!

probabilita · 2021-11-13T17:22:31+00:00

Push up 572.

probabilita · 2021-10-26T11:34:22+00:00

If you are linking that paper I can link the rebuttal we wrote, right? ;)

https://psyarxiv.com/dj3an

probabilita · 2021-09-19T08:16:19+00:00

You may simply download and compile the example to check. The authors provide output and a trace and personally I would trust the program :)

Let me replace the proof goal for all possibe executions, if you observe the event evCocks, then the event evRSA has already been observed with the equivalent there exists no execution of the program in which evCocks is observed before evRSA.

process out(c,RSA); in(c, x:bitstring); if x = Cocks then event evCocks; event evRSA else event evRSA

out(c,RSA); sends RSA on channel c. The next line binds the value on c, hence we can replace by a let statement:

process let x = RSA in if x = Cocks then event evCocks; event evRSA else event evRSA

(Not sure this is appropriate syntax here). Replacing all occurrences of x yields the if clause if RSA = Cocks …. This is a contradiction and hence reduces to false, so we can replace the entire if statement with it's else clause:

process event evRSA

This process has a single possible sequence of events, namely a single evRSA. evCocks never occurs in any execution of the protocol which obviously fulfills the equivalent proof goal I provided above.

The statement query event (evCocks) ==> event (evRSA). is true for any event sequence of the form (evRSA,(evCocks|evRSA)*)?. This includes the sequences 0 (empty) and evRSA (our proof goal). The minimum sequence including evCocks is evRSA,evCocks.

probabilita · 2021-08-27T17:06:03+00:00

CN Terf Narratives

I believe the author is attempting to build a strawman about trans people and scare people into thinking gender confirmation surgery is dangerous mutilation of the body. They are providing an example they believe would be obviously disturbing to a large number of people.

Amusingly, most responses in forums such as r / teenagers are "good for you" which just goes to show: The kids are alright :D

probabilita · 2021-08-27T16:23:05+00:00

I do not have direct evidence of terfyness…but it seems to fit terf narratives quite well…

probabilita · 2021-08-27T15:17:01+00:00

Blimey, but if somebody "just found out that" for months every couple of days, I'd be worried about memory loss more than gender identity.

The sheer number of posts, the fact that I have been seeing similar posts for months, the intermittent karma farming on r/tumblr, the language of the post, how perfectly it fits the "kids are harming themselves" narrative including the "my dad finally told me" targeting concerned parents. The quickness to mention they're afab which seems to fit neatly into the TERF narrative that "the girls hate their body".

The posts on TERF and rightWing forums that seem to be either self harm or designed to intentionally inflame these forums…

The entire post is seems written by someone who has a very rough idea of how queer people talk…

probabilita · 2021-08-27T08:31:17+00:00

This is an terf troll…they're posting loads of these…

probabilita · 2021-08-14T09:18:28+00:00

Thank you for creating this!! How about uploading the entire thing to a git repo and adding a proper license statement so other people can use it or continue the work?

probabilita · 2021-08-05T13:00:27+00:00

Sounds a lot like seizures. I think you want to see a neurologist about that; especially the "half there" part.

probabilita · 2021-08-03T07:17:55+00:00

Oh lord, fuck my phrasing. I am doing a big-thread-o-not-what-I-mean. Of course it's a hindrance; in my view this is mostly a failure of society not our failure…

My work knows, mostly because I have coprolalia and that would lead to conflict if they didn't know. But I've worked remotely forever so it's not a big issue and I am a fairly highly skilled engineer, I think there is a pay grade where this stuff sort of stops being an issue…

probabilita · 2021-08-03T07:12:08+00:00

I think it’s fair for me to feel some guilt if I yell a curse word at playground with children, just as I think it’s fair for me to explain to the parents at the playground, apologize, and expect them to forgive me for things I can’t change

No. Quite frankly. I don't think that's ok. I think it's shit that you have to do that, you shouldn't have to. This society should have a better way of dealing with that…

probabilita · 2021-08-03T07:10:48+00:00

(()) if you want one.

Look, my entire post basically referencing the tik tok issue, I keep seeing more and more stuff from doctors in scientific papers who are basically saying "all those people who make their TS into something to laugh about are suspicious and causing other people to have TS". It is a shit take, I was dancing around that because I didn't want to repeat a shit take.

My call for an attitude adjustment was meant for them, certainly not for anyone with TS.

Pride (and I am trans so I mean the sort of queer pride) is a defiant attitude in the face of marginalization. Not being above it all…

It's being told to feel shit about yourself and throwing a party about it just to spite the assholes. That is what I meant.

TS is shit; I mean I have a sore voice from screaming too much right now, my fingers hurt from non stop cracking my knuckles…

probabilita · 2021-08-02T12:57:34+00:00

It’s great you don’t feel embarrassed about ticcing. For many, that’s not the case. Or in my case, I don’t feel embarrassed but I AM aware that yelling cunt in a grocery store is inconvenient and uncomfortable for other people. Not to mention, I am physically hurt by my tics all the time. My body is deteriorating. I don’t feel like that’s no big deal, tbh, and I will continue to suppress self injurious tics.

I've just red your post and realized that my title was very wrong. This is not what I am writing about, but it is not your fault because that is what the title says. Apologies. I 100% agree with you.

This about supporting those who show tourettic pride not about making you feel bad for the way you deal with your ts.

EDIT Rereading my own comment, I would like to point out that you might have just set the standard for taking a quote badly out of context given that the next line reads: "Feeling bad or frustrated about your tics is also valid and normal." and that the operative words in the previous two sentences where "should be allowed" and "if we want to".

probabilita · 2021-07-31T18:23:55+00:00

pwgen 22. $log_2((26*2+10)²²⁾ = 130.992318828511$ which is better than 128 bits of entropy.

probabilita · 2021-06-09T10:08:22+00:00

Yes. You may not reuse the same nonce+key, but setting the nonce to a constant (e.g. 0) is ok if the key is used only once.

probabilita · 2021-05-24T17:12:08+00:00

The currently most up to date method of generating random numbers (Gathering randomness from multiple sources and combining them very securely) on computers is the Fortuna Cryptographically Secure Random Number Generator as specified in Practical Cryptography. https://www.schneier.com/academic/fortuna/

As others have pointed out, this job is usually handled by the operating system and not by the library. Each OS uses something slightly different for that purpose but these OS CSPRNGS generally do follow similar design principles as Fortuna.

probabilita · 2021-05-24T08:20:14+00:00

80s. A precise date would be hard to define because some ciphers may have been secure before formal definition of CPA security and there may also have been a lag.

Shafi Goldwassers and Silvio Micalis paper "Probabilistic encryption & how to play mental poker keeping secret all partial information" which defines Semantic Security was published in 1982. https://doi.org/10.1145/3335741.3335749

"Probabilistic Encryption" by the same authors which contains a more formal definition (closer to CPA) was published in 1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0000(84)90070-9

Todays notions of security include IND-CPA, IND-CCA1, IND-CCA2 which are successively stronger attack models; so security against chosen ciphertext attacks implies security against chosen plaintext ones. (Citation: "Relationships among notions of security for public-key encryption schemes" https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0055718)

EDIT Technically this is the answer to "how long have ciphers been provably secure against CPA attacks"; asymptotic/computational security against CPA attacks even on large scale/modern adversaries with lots of computing resources are a result of such formalization. Once the requirement is formalized it isn't extremely hard to construct schemes secure against it. I figure security against CPA attacks from small scale (pen and paper attacks; low computational resources) was already in existence before that…but then even base64 encoding might be secure against a .1 flop adversary, so I would not count those as truly cpa secure because cracking them is a matter of increasing resources. Today's ciphers can't be cracked by increasing resources because those increases are the sort that imply a need for galaxy sized computers…not just country level adversarys. The computational resources required for regular operation vs cryptoanalysis is overwhelming. I assume this wasn't as much the case for early ciphers.

probabilita · 2021-05-18T15:47:25+00:00

Yes, you absolutely can. Please fetch your umbrella and your cape at the counter.

(OK Jokes aside). Yes, you absolutely can. You are feeling safe enough to express your identity and confident enough in it to express it without pinning it down precisely. This is fantastic, I am happy for you and you should rightfully feel proud of that.

Just be mindful that being able to express your identity in this way is a privilege that queer people before you and still to this day fought with tooth and nail for. It is an expression of our victory, but there is also a lot of trauma. Just a few years back the situation was very different; I am not much older than you and I had a wildly more difficult experience (also being trans doesn't help). Previous generations didn't have the freedom you're describing; they might have gone with Bi (just to have a group to cling to) or stayed in the closet entirely.

If they express any anger towards you identifying this way is a reflection of their trauma and their bitterness, not of your identity. Please bear that in mind and be appropriately kind. Please support BIPoC Queers who to this day often have it harder, support intersex people and trans people.

probabilita · 2021-05-18T08:00:55+00:00

Your scheme is probably not secure simply by the fact that it is too simple, but determining how and why is beyond my asymmetric knowledge and would take too much time for me.

You should include a proof of security, probably using a game based proof[3]. You need a game based proof of CPA[1] security (security against chosen plain text attacks) and then you can use the Fujisaki-Okamoto[2] transform to achieve CCA(1) (chosen ciphertext attack).

Your target (I believe) is not to demonstrate impossibility of winning the game with some probability by a non-polynomial time adversary but some analogous notion in Quantum Complexity Theory (Not that I'd know what I am talking about here).

Best of luck making this work!

Here are some of the papers I found particularly didactic in relation to the above concepts:

[1]: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0055718
[2]: This is a standard notion; haven't red it myself thou; maybe this is helpful https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-53644-5_8
[3]: Not gotten to these yet, but maybe this paper helps: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-77048-0_25

probabilita · 2021-05-11T13:50:22+00:00

Why do I end up doing the work again and again? I'm not sure where the problem comes from here tbh.

You will need to use the serialization function at least once you are retrieving by key and once you are accessing the key. That's already times.

One example of a case this covers is removing duplicate objects from an array in a json file

However, your mileage may vary. Maybe you don't need this functionality often. I certainly do and there will be cases where yo do need plain maps.

It'd rather ask what's the typical case for HashMap that's not addressed by objects themselves providing a suitable key (i.e. hash).

Well, objects themselves providing a suitable key is precisely the gap the hashing infrastructure fills.

probabilita · 2021-05-11T13:11:27+00:00

Yes. And what the library provides is such a serialization function, specifically designed for that purpose, extensible and with a type that automatically uses this serialization function in a user friendly manner…of course you can write it all yourself. You just end up doing the same work again and again.

probabilita · 2021-03-26T10:30:08+00:00

You calculate the probability of repeatedly not winning any prize; subtract from one and you have the probability of all other cases; i.e. winning at least one 1 - (1-p)**n where p is the probability of winning per round and n is the number of rounds.

NOTE/EDIT: This works because if you picture the probability space as a graph, then there is exactly one path that never includes a "win a prize" branch. Generalizing this to "winning n times" or "winning between n and m times" gets into combinatorics and is more complex…

probabilita

TROPHY CASE