It’s not a key, it sends left win + left shift + f23. Can’t be disentangled from those other modifier keys, true remapping is impossible unless you can get to the keyboard firmware. Even under linux.

No idea why noone mentioned it, but this exists.

https://generalfusion.com/

The core idea of combustion is using momentum to achieve combustion to generate back momentum (and heat).

The laser fusion detonation is similar, but I find other concepts reflect the idea way better.

General fusion uses liquid metal, that is compressed into the center trapping a bubble of fusion gas under extreme pressure for a moment. Inspired by cavitation bubbles in water that when symmetric enough can produce light and evaporate metal.
The fusion then bounces back onto the liquid metal, and fusion products are absorbed by it, so the heated liquid can be cycled into a heat engine. I don’t think there is an intention to recover mechanical energy though.

Another approach is dynamic z-pinch. Helion would be an exanple.
You form a magnetic enclosure trapping fusion gasy then push the magnetic enclosure inwards, compressing the gas to fusion. The charged fusion products (needs fusion that doesn’t emit neutrons) are again trapped in the field, pushing against it with far more speed, effectively far higher temperature, causing the field to exoand again against the controlling magnetic coils, that now operate in reverse generating current from regeneratively breaking the push.

I think this is the closest analogy to combustion engines. An initial push is inserted via momentum (of the magnetic field), which compresses the fuel, combusting it, increasing pressure/temperature, pushing back against the confinement which now absorbs the (magnetic) momentum, turning it back into power.
The only difference is that between cycles the power to keep the next cycle going is stored in capacitors not as momentum of something. And ofc the thing in motion is a more intangible magnetic field, together with currents running in magnets, not physical mass.

Hi, didn’t expect to see you here.

Let’s look at static differences first.
Absolute gravitational potential itself is impossible to measure, since all frames of reference act the same. But we can easily measure differences of potential using accurate clocks. This works well on the surface of earth in reference to outer space for example.
When measuring underground, we can also measure the accceleration along the path when walking there, since the acceleration is caused by the gradient in gravitational potential.
In practice though we would still use the clock method since we can measure time so much more accurately than acceleration.

Going into orbit though, we get another problem, namely we are no longer “still”. The idea of gravity itself is a neat model, but it’s still general relativity underneath which means effects of our movement and of “gravity” are always mixed. So you can put a clock in orbit, but have to very accurately know the exact orbit to make an absolute measurement.
In effect the gps satellites have done this, and we can see their rate of time and attribute it to their orbit vs. their location, often written special vs general relativistic effects.
This value is not very useful, since not only do we average over the entire orbit, we also don’t know the orbit precisely enough.

We can do better though, good enough to measure changes over time.
By building an even better optimized “clock”.
Regular clocks act kinda like gears. We have a mechanism that oscillates at a very stable high frequency, and then “gear” a mechanism to match it, but at a lower frequency, until we get to something we can measure with regular electronics. At that point, we get averages of many oscillations. We then have to send them on to a different clock, since we have nothing to measure our ticks against, for us they are evenly spaced. That receiver has to catch the very high bandwidth signal of billions of clock ticks, and compare it to a second clock.
Any anomaly of the signal path will look like a shift in time, a change in gravitational potential difference of the two clocks. Worse, atomic clocks are designed mainly for long-term accuracy, so they tend to have shifts in rates over shorter timeframes. Thus, instead we strip stuff to the bare minimum, and do our own clock with blackjack and hookers and without the whole clock part where it measured time.

Einstein had a few Gedankenexperiments that still show up in lessons on relativity because they are good. One common object is a laser clock. You bounce a laser between plates, and the rate of bouncing changes according to the local rate of time. This turns out to make a pretty shitty clock, but lets you do optics on the output making for a really good comparison between two different clocks, via interferometry.

Since you need to measure two locations anyway to get the time difference, you can send out two beams of the same source, thus matching exactly, and align them on the return, making their path lengths precisely equal. On average.
If you do this well enough, you can see temporary changes to this, as fast as you can measure the beam interferences, since those beams are in effect comparing at extremely high frequency.

You can now dump this instrument in orbit, and measure the changes along the orbital path, forming a high detail map of earths gravitational differences from the ideal. Or you can put it on earths surface or in outer space and wait for abrupt changes of gravity bumping into you.

Because ofc moving masses “update” the gravitational potential field, and if those updates happen quickly enough we can measure the change with our very precise change detector differential clocks, while the absolute difference might be too small to see on regular clocks, or affect all clocks equally due to great distance of the source, or the subsequent waves may cancel the change, averaging to 0.

Or would it not be possible because the sensor itself would interfere with the readings?

For one all the setups we have so far want to be extremely still, a single piece at rest. Not to prevent gravitational waves or even permanent changes in potential, but to prevent mechanical vibrations.
The equipemnt is extremely light as gravitational masses go though. When you go up in scale, mass changds with volume, with the cube, but strength of gravity, of the gradient, with the square of distance. So when comparing a small interferometer sitting on a 1m satellite, its effects are a million times weaker than earth, with a diameter on the order of millions of meters. Actually far less, since the satellite isn’t a solid ball of dense material.

If you wanted to you could probably spin up a large barbell shape in space right next to a gravitational wave detector and not annoy the scientists from vibrations but from the waves. Probably. Take care it’s in shadow, otherwise the changes in light reflection onto the satellite would probably overshaddow your waves.

The entire renewal process is fairly cheap, resource wise. 7 day certificates are already a thing.
In terms of bandwidth you could easily renew a billion certificates a day over a gigabit connection, and in terms of performance I recon even without specialized hardware a single system could keep up with that, though that also depends on the signature algorithms employed in the future of course.

The dependence on these servers is the far bigger problem I’d say.
This shortening of lifetimes is a slow change, so I hope there will be solutions before it becomes an issue. Like keeping multiple copies of certificates alive with different providers, so the one in use can silently fall through when one provider stops working. Currently there are too few providers for my taste, that would have to improve for such a system to be viable.

Maybe one day you’ll select a bundle of 5 certificate services with similar policies for creating your certificate the way you currently select a single one in certbot or acme.sh

As long as you don’t run out of memory, you can actually insert and lookup in O(1) time for a known space of values (that we have). Therefore we do get the quadratic speedup, that when dealing with bits of keysize or entropy means cutting it in half.
Checking to get a specific uuid takes 128bit, so 2¹²⁸ draws of a uuid. Putting all previous uuids into a table we expect a collision in 64bit, so 2⁶⁴. We also need about that much storage to contain the table, so some tens of exabytes.

Against a apecific one too. Usually you’d check for duplicates against all previous uuids

I’ve met some from asia and europe

Everything is a web language if you believe

1:31 & 2:47

I think it says “honesty of these words”

Oh my I must have recited it wrong from memory, my bad

Yep, exact copy of the first 35 lines from the 100,000 Digits of Pi website, the spaces are still in

Oh you want the code not rendered into html!
Drops the code in javascript when it is received from the backend.

Yeah, I would expect it to be hard, similar to asking an llm to substitiute all letters e with an a. Which I’m sure they struggle with but manage to perform it too.

In this context though it’s a bit misleading explaining the observed behavior of op with that though, since it implies it is due to that fundamental nature of llms when in practice all models I have tested fundamentally had the ability.

It does seem that llms simply don’t use double spaces (or I have not noticed them doing it anywhere yet), but if you trained or just systemprompted them differently they could easily start to. So it isn’t a very stable method for non-ai identification.

Edit: And of course you’d have to make sure the interfaces also don’t strip double spaces, as was guessed elsewhere. I have not checked other interfaces but would not be surprised either way whether they did or did not. This too thought can’t be overly hard to fix with a few select character conversions even in the worst cases. And clearly at least my interface already managed to do it just fine.

I’d expect tokenizers to include spaces in tokens. You get words constructed from multiple tokens, so can’t really insert spaces based on them. And too much information doesn’t work well when spaces are stripped.

In my tests plenty of llms are also capable of seeing and using double spaces when accessed with the right interface.

This seems to match up with some quick tests I did just now, on the pseudonyminized chatbot interface of duckduckgo.
chatgpt, llama, and claude all managed to use double spaces themselves, and all but llama managed to tell I was using them too.
It might well depend on the platform, with the “native” applications for them stripping them on both ends.

Export the apk via adb and then install it from the file on future devices?

You could use njal.la, who charge a flat 15$ without deceptive schemes and actually protect your privacy properly too.
To be fair namecheap legally can’t do what njalla does since namecheap is a primary registrar and njalla secondary.

In terms of activism I’d think both getting the cheapest option and donating 8$ a year to the eff or a similar group directly, or taking a njalla domain and donating 3$, would be cheaper than namecheap and also more effective at defending internet freedom.

In the underlying system there is no difference. A renewal is just a transfer/registration leaving the data unchanged.
All cost the same and add 1 year of lifetime to the domain.
Any other pricing is invented by that specific registrar and doesn’t reflect actual costs.

What a ripoff, .com has always been about 10$. The renewal being somehow more expensive than a new registration, while in actuality there is no difference in the process, really makes it obvious they charge what they think people will fall for.

$7.85 per year in 2012. $8.39 in 2021, $8.97 in 2022, and $9.59 in 2023, $10.26 in 2024, increases always in september.

Transfers, registrations, and renewals all cost the same and all charge the domain by 1 year. You can charge at any time for I think up to 10 years. Any registrar not passing that system on is being deceptive.

They aren’t even roping in people with prices below cost, they charge you a reasonable fee for the first year and then somehow bank on people not switching. Maybe they make the process really painful?

Either way why would anyone use them?

Going by memory there used to be competition a few years ago, so they may still be consolidating the market and stabelizing their monopoly before tightening prices.