Tlaloc_Temporal

Northern England just got a new nickname.

Even py.game would be better at this point…

See that’s more realistic. Sneaking off to walmart is still a bit of a stretch in sprawl-hell, but I can see how a cheap locally available phone might make it’s way into anyone’s hands, especially as a hand-me-down.

Piracy has always been a distribution issue. There are definitely greedy lazy people who will always want more for less, but the organized effort required for piracy only happens when fair access is impossible.

And buying that requires knowledge of amazon, knowledge of what phone is useful, knowledge to avoid a scam or faulty product, an email address, a credit card, and a device to order from.

Children are surprisingly clever and have all the time in the world, but they aren’t professional pen-testers and don’t have the experience needed to use online services before having access to them.

It’s far more likely they get a hand-me-down device from a friend and keep it at school, especially if they know such a thing would be confiscated immediately upon discovery. Preventing this interaction would require control over the child’s life nearing Amish levels, or prison levels.

Boost also has yet to implement spoiler tags.

Yeah, repeat ads are the worst. One of the best targeting thing that could be done is simply prevent seeing the same ad more than once in a 24h period. It would do so much to make the hellscape a little more bearable.

Dislikes is why I left anyway! XD

I even left ads on for nearly a year until a particularly metally hazardous on pushed me to turn them off, and I haven’t gone back since. On the occasion I use YT outside my ecosystem, it suddenly feels so much worse.

I think those pants are underfitting…

Ugh, I just had to get an organization outlook and they’ve been screwing with backend server protocol support, which kills most third-party apps. For E-MAIL! Nothing about this need a new standard!

True, a fully transparent system would require every voter to understand the machine and how the systems prevent tampering.

At the same time, I don’t think even a majority of voters know how the voting process works in the U.S. and Canada today, simply trusting that such a process exists. I’d argue that many of the processes aren’t even fair, with gerrymandering and spoiler effects being common. Large numbers of people even believe that mail-in votes are simply a tool for fraud.

So yes, ideally everyone would fully understand every step of every system of the voting process, but a working system is possible without that. If a more opaque system could increase verifiability and/or allow faster easier voting, it might be worth it. Of course currently existing voting machines do neither, and massively increase opacity at every level, so they’re quite terrible, but I don’t think they need to be perfect to be useful.

Boost is fantastic for keeping my place. I just don’t have to worry about switching to the web to look something up, or even just to do some math. Even if the app gets killed in the background, you’ll be returned to where you were. It’s great, I wish every app could have such a good memory.

That’s just human s though. The only way to fix that is force everyone and everything onto All.

Theoretically, a voting machine could be open source, tracable, verifiable, and well regulated.

In practice, all your currently existing industries can only make black boxes that even the makers can’t guarantee the workings of.

Github, but it’s afraid of commitment, it just wants to spoon.

I agree that the vast majority of ads are manipulative, but are there not legitimate uses in notification? Like posters annoucing an event, requests for scientific trials, or even lost posters.

Google runs AdSense, they’re exactly one of the advertising companies I’m talking about. I agree that they’re in a great position to enforce regulations on ads and build trust, but why do that when you can just eliminate all the alternatives?

Ad moderation won’t happen until there’s a unified group which can moderate ads and can’t gain from being more permissive. Basically, advertisers need to unionize against their own common interest to increase the quantity of ads.

This has kind of happened already in the form of sponsorships, where each ad is vetted and can be rejected on a case-by-case basis. Each presenter is acting alone in this case however, letting bad sponsors slip through. Bad sponsors are often slammed on in feedback though.

Perhapse if advertisers could remove their heads from their posteriors for a moment they might see that neutrally read ads with no music would drive far fewer people to block them, but this could only work if all ads on a platform were limited in this way, and such regulations could be reliable and specific enough to make blocking more hassle than it’s worth.

I’m having difficulty imagining a blocker driven agreement though, as any level of leeway for ads would all but require compensation, and that’s 99% of the way to corruption already.

However, this all could only work if for-profic companies could be convinced to not seek every possible profit at every point immediately, which is unlikely.

Sadly, google cats aren’t part of the cat distribution system.

If a new government makes it known that they’ll increase tariffs, any company dealing with international trade can prepare for increased costs sooner. Or even better, if there’s a movement for emissions regulations, they can get lobbyists and lawyers to find or add loopholes nice and early, long before cars would actually need to be more efficient.

Anyway, the miscommunication here seems to be what you mean by nondeterministic and unpredictable. We’ve been through deterministic, and that doesn’t perclude unpredictable.

For example, cryptographic hashes are completely deterministic yet impossible to predict. The determinism allows easily checking for the correct string, but the unpredictability makes guessing the correct string impossible beyond brute force. Yet if a security protocol used π to seed it’s hashes, it would be way more predictable than most methods. Even if your psudorandom table is indistinguishable from noise, if the table is known the whole system can be cracked relatively easily. Thus π would make that method predictable.

Now you could mean that each character or string says very little about each other character or string, but that’s a different claim; that you can’t predict one part of the number using another part. For example, if you say the code to your luggage is a five digit string starting at the 49702nd digit of π, that’s easy to lookup. But no amount of digits will help you figure out that this string really is from π and not something else. I’d call that chaotic rather than unpredictable, as unpredictable makes me think of probability more than calculability. π is found in so many places that many sci-fi stories use it in first contact scenarios, alongside e, the hydrogen line, Fibonacci numbers, and c or sometimes hbar. Dependable is hardly unpredictable.

If we go back to your original reason for describing the predictability of some numbers, we find a simple nonrepeating number (101100111000… let’s call it b for binary) and π. With b, any string can at least narrow down it’s location in the number, and if a string contains both 10 and 01 we can positively fix it’s location, even to a place that no one has calculated before. This is impossible with π, we can positively rule out many positions, but no position can be confirmed for any string, and any string may appear further in the digits as well, giving multiple possible positions for any string.

However we can still compute π, and thus can know (even better than predict!) any arbitrarily precise digit in finite time. There are numbers where that’s not possible, so-called non-computable numbers (For example). This number cannot to computed in finite time, only approximated. This sounds more unpredictable.

Predictability could be seen as a function of the ease of calculability, especially when time is a limited resource, but why not just say that π is more complex to predict than b, or that the existence of b doesn’t disprove that π can contain all finite strings? That was the original issue after all.

Sorry, TL;DR, I don’t think unpredictable is a good word to use outside of probability, and even so an easily predictable number is enough to prove that not all irrational numbers are normal numbers (not all numbers with infinite digits contain all finite strings).