Something I've never understood about DRM is, if the content is ultimately played on my device, what stops me from reverse engineering their code to make an alternative client or downloader? Is it just making it harder to do so? Or is there a theoretical limit to reverse engineering that I'm not getting? Do they have hardware decryption keys in every monitor, inside the LCD controller chip?
in short and simple terms, those parasites colluded with hardware manufacturers and put a special chip in your computer and monitor that runs enslavement software
without opening it up physically there is no way to make it stop or get the raw stream before it's displayed
This. Some ways back I actually purchased bluray recording device only to learn that its firmware is deliberately crippled to accommodate someone's business model. There are people who do the unsung hero work, but those types of skills are not exactly common and a business asshole is a dime a dozen any century you want to pick.
Yes, the decryption happens in hardware. For your OS (and potential capturing software running on it) the place where you see the video is just an empty canvas on which the hardware renders the decrypted image.
For what its worth, all of my local banking and e-government apps work flawlessly on GrapheneOS. The only unsupported feature or app I've found so far is Google Pay. (I'm from Italy)
> Just intuitively, in such a high dimensional space, two random vectors are basically orthogonal.
Which, incidentally, is the main reason why deep learning and LLM are effective in the first place.
A vector of a few thousands dimensions would be woefully inadequate to represent all of human knowledge, if not for the fact that it works as the projection of a much higher, potentially infinite-dimensional vector representing all possible knowledge. The smaller-sized one works in practice as a projection, precisely because any two such vectors are almost always orthogonal.
Two random vectors are almost always neither collinear nor orthogonal. So what you mean is either "not collinear", which is a trivial statement, or something like "their dot product is much smaller than abs(length(vecA) * length(vecB))", which is probably interesting but still not very clear.
Well, the actual interesting part is that when the vector dimension grows then random vectors will become almost orthogonal. smth smth exponential number of almost orthogonal vectors. this is probably the most important reason why text embedding is working. you take some structure from a 10^6 dimension, and project it to 10^3 dimension, and you can still keep the distances between all vectors.
> I have a good understanding of the problem, but I do not have a solution
REALLY
Just don't call background services, unless the user explicitly requested a remote service! My Linux installs and (to a lesser degree) my Windows LTSB/LTSC installs don't have these issues, you know?
I don't think that there's anything inherent about concatenative languages that forces them to be postfix. The Wikipedia definition (not authoritative, surely, but one we can all access) is:
> A concatenative programming language is a point-free computer programming language in which all expressions denote functions, and the juxtaposition of expressions denotes function composition.
As long as all functions are fixed arity—admittedly a serious limitation—there doesn't seem obviously to be any reason you couldn't write the function first (though of course it's fair to ask why you would want to).
I associate concatenative languages with stack languages, which means that the postfix syntax is obvious. But as the sibling comment mentioned, that doesn't necessarily need to be the case.
Even after perusing jq's manual multiple times and having written several complex incantations, I still have no idea how to properly combine `|` and `.[]` except by trial and error, or why `select()` needs to be used inside `map(select(...))`
Recently I needed to extract some data, and after fighting with jq and its manual for half an hour, I solved the problem in 30 seconds with node.js
I appreciate the idea behind jq, but its language is horrible. Even XPath was easier and cleaner.
Hmm. I also think jq is more awkward than it needs to be, but I don’t think the points you mention are a problem. Maybe explaining them would help?
(Note: the following explains jq’s operation using the smallest possible subset of the language, it doesn’t aim to use the most natural programs possible.)
So jq’s data model (much like XPath’s actually) is that everything is a (possibly empty) stream of (JSON) values. On input (unless you use -s), it accepts any number of concatenated JSON objects (usually separated by newlines or ACSII RS, but as JSON is self-delimiting that isn’t strictly required) and makes a stream out of them.
That is then fed into the program, a pipeline of |-separated transforms, each of which can generate zero or more output elements from each input element. For example, .foo is a one-to-one transform that, when it accepts an object, emits the value of its foo property (and fails otherwise):
And .[] is a one-to-zero-or-more transform that, on accepting an array, emits each array element separately (and fails otherwise):
$ echo '[false,1][][2]' | jq '.[]'
false
1
2
While select(F) is a one-to-zero-or-one transform that, on accepting an element, feeds it into F and lets its pass through if it got a truthy value or rejects if it got a falsy one:
OK, that last one was a bit of a lie. Because we don’t want to introduce functions into the language as a separate kind of thing to transforms, F is also a transform, so it might possibly emit more than one value in response to whatever select fed it. The full truth is that select(F) is a one-to-zero-or-more transform that emits each input value as many times as there are truthy values in F’s response to it:
That might have not been terribly useful, but it illustrates two points. First, a JSON literal is a valid transform: one that emits itself every time it gets something. (That’s why you need to write .[] for flatten: plain [] is the empty array literal.) Second, while jq cannot do many-to-one transforms, on pain of losing its streaming nature, it can do something like nested contexts, where it launches a subordinate pipeline and does something with the results.
And it is willing to collect those results instead of streaming them: if you have a pipeline P, [P] is a one-to-one transform that, for each input element, runs P on it, collects all the results from them, puts them into an array and emits that. For example:
(here . is the one-to-one identity transform). Instead of [.[] | P] you can write map(P).
What this boils down to select(C) will go through the input stream and pare down its elements to those that satisfy C, while map(select(C)) will go through the input stream of arrays and pare down each array’s elements to those that satisfy C.
Final point: if you want to give up streaming, the -s / --slurp flag will slurp the input stream into an array, then feed it to your program as a single element. That is, jq -s '.[] | P' is a worse synonym of jq P.
They should all be either allowed or denied. Why are UR-MOM or F-YOU considered offensive, while newer memes and slang that may be even more offensive can probably pass through the radar? Either allow everything, or deny vanity plates altogether.
IIRC a spinning space station would only be beneficial if it was very large and thus far from Earth and expensive.
Otherwise the difference in gravity acting on different sides of the body and more importantly the Coriolis forces would wreak havoc and cause more harm than good.
