I’m not a security expert, but to my knowledge that’s the point - even a unique salt global to your site/service can help. Worth mentioning are rainbow tables, which are databases of hashes for known strings, so you can take a hash and look up the string, and very easily defeated by salts.
KubeRoot
- 0 Posts
- 532 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 25th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
If the password is securely hashed, and the attack only includes data exfiltration, then there’s theoretically no risk of breaking into users’ accounts anyways. However, the issue is that if somebody can log into your Plex account, that means they got your password somehow - and if they did get that password, they can use it elsewhere. So if there’s any reason to change your password on Plex, then there’s just as much reason to change that same password elsewhere.
I do think they missed a bit about password reuse, since they tell you to reset the password on their site, you should be changing the password on any other sites where you reused it. But yeah, not arguing about it being good otherwise.
Not entirely sure what you’re referring to, but if you mean that it’s not only markdown, absolutely - what’s immediately relevant here is that it is markdown we’re using here, which can be used to look up formatting and is useful to know where else this syntax will work.
I’m curious - was it also a checkbox that immediately applied when toggled, instead of not actually applying until you press save?
Like this:
> Quote > > Second paragraph of quoteQuote
Second paragraph of quote
Note that it’s standard markdown syntax, and also that the contents of the quote are also markdown and should support standard formatting (including nesting quotes inside them)
I’m confused. It’s based on arch but not really? Is it arch based or not? Does it use any arch package manager? The post raises a number of new questions
The answers to that seem pretty obvious to me: yes, it is based on arch. No, it does not come with a package manager. Presumably, they use Arch packaging tools and package definitions behind the scenes in some way, but the end result is a premade immutable system image.
2·6 days agoI really hope not, that feels like crypto all over again, with inconsistent payouts and varying electricity prices… And on top of that probably awful service since people tend to have the weirdest internet connections.
Though if you remove the part where it’s used to stream games to other players, that sounds too niche to be viable, but could be cool. If going in that direction, I’d imagine it more likely to be gaming servers for businesses, like VR gaming spots, where they have multiple gaming computers hooked up to headsets.
I will point out that it generally takes more effort to make one sandwich, than it takes to make one sandwich out of a hundred. Getting fresh bread and (fresh?) spiced mayo is extra work that you only need to do once per multiple sandwiches, but it doesn’t really get easier when only making one.
All I’m saying is, enjoy things made by specialized professionals, economies of scale mean that it’s more efficient for one person to make sandwiches for their surroundings anyways!
I’m not a soulslike fan myself, but I don’t think hollow knight is very soulslike - the combat is very snappy, avoiding locking you into animations or making you consider your momentum, and I have the impression soulslikes also tend to be way more environmentally lethal, so to speak.
It might have some of that visual/lore/exploration vibe though.
162·8 days agoApertus was developed with due consideration to Swiss data protection laws, Swiss copyright laws, and the transparency obligations under the EU AI Act. Particular attention has been paid to data integrity and ethical standards: the training corpus builds only on data which is publicly available. It is filtered to respect machine-readable opt-out requests from websites, even retroactively, and to remove personal data, and other undesired content before training begins.
We probably won’t get better, but sounds like it’s still being trained on scraped data unless you explicitly opt out, including anything that may be getting mirrored by third parties that don’t opt out. Also, they can remove data from the training material retroactively… But presumably won’t be retraining the model from scratch, which means it will still have that in their weights, and the official weights will still have a potential advantage on models trained later on their training data.
From the license:
SNAI will regularly provide a file with hash values for download which you can apply as an output filter to your use of our Apertus LLM. The file reflects data protection deletion requests which have been addressed to SNAI as the developer of the Apertus LLM. It allows you to remove Personal Data contained in the model output.
Oof, so they’re basically passing on data protection deletion requests to the users and telling them all to respectfully account for them.
They also claim “open data”, but I’m having trouble finding the actual training data, only the “Training data reconstruction scripts”…
So, the issue is, as far as I know the calculations are dead simple - you “enter” and “exit” the planet’s influence at the same distance from the planet, which means your potential gravitational energy didn’t change, so from the orbital mechanics point of view, from the planet’s frame of reference, your velocity should stay the same.
As you “fall” in the orbit around the planet, you’re converting potential gravitational energy to kinetic energy, but as you “climb” you convert it back into potential gravitational energy, ending with the same amount of each kind of energy. The only change is that the velocity is redirected.
With that in mind, it’s why, from my knowledge, the equations are really simple, with the only complications being trigonometry (to resolve the angles) and pythagoras (squaring, adding and getting the square root make the result unintuitive).
Going back to your graph, if I were to do the math, according to my theory:
- In A, let’s say you go in with 200 speed, and 0° angle (for simplicity). That means relative to the planet you have 100 speed.
- In B, you gain some speed by converting potential energy to kinetic. We can’t say how much you gained, because we’re missing any real measure of distance and mass, but the neat thing is - it doesn’t matter, because:
- In C, you turn that kinetic energy back into potential energy, and end up with the same speed you entered at, at the same distance. This means you now again have 100 speed relative to the planet, but aimed at a 60° angle. We can now add the velocity vectors of the planet and the velocity relative to the planet to get the velocity relative to the sun, using the planet’s velocity as one axis, getting a vector of [100+100*cos(60°); 100*sin(60°)], or [150; 86.6025], with magnitude of 173.2051, which is less than the 200 we went in with.
If you want an intuitive example of what I’m referring to, consider a planet approaching you as you are stationary relative to the sun. If we assume ideal, presumably impossible, entry and exit angles of 0° and 180°, leaving the planet’s gravity field moving in the exact opposite direction than what you entered, you’ll note you’ll be gaining speed on exit either way, despite not moving towards the planet on the approach and “catching up”.
The graph doesn’t really show anything other than illustrate your thoughts - but there’s absolutely nothing backing that as being true :/
Either way, it does feel like we’re going around in circles, and I don’t want to be taking up your time unnecessarily. If you have something to disprove my math (maybe my understanding of orbital dynamics is wrong, and it’s not that simple), that’d be a starting point to try to figure out what’s wrong; if you’re interested, I could try to make diagrams, though I feel like they might kind of look the same, just with different numbers based on calculations.
I guess one last thing I can offer is a video somebody replied to me with elsewhere in the thread, explaining this idea: https://youtube.com/shorts/kD8PFhj_a8s
They said cheaper than vanilla extract, the synthetic stuff is probably still cheaper. Though there is a possibility, since the materials and production will have a cost…
Well, relative motions are more intuitive to me - they make sense, and I can use calculations for them.
In the first example, you presented 101 speed - this means only 1 speed relative to the planet, and that’s all that’s getting redirected (in the planet’s frame of reference your enter and exit velocity should be the same, since that’s how orbits work). The number is just too small, but your velocity would be planet velocity + 1 on a different vector, which will be less than 101 total.
If we estimate the angle on the picture is about 60 degrees from the velocity vector, and the speed to be 100+v1, the speed from the planet’s frame of reference is v1 - so, the exit velocity will have components of (100+v1cos(60°)) and (v1sin(60°)), so the final speed relative to the sun should be
sqrt((100+x*cos(60°))2+(x*sin(60°))2)
Wolfram alpha suggests this simplifies to sqrt(x(x+100)+10000), and comparing the equation by appending
<x+100gives the solution of x>0This means, if my math is correct, with an entry angle of 0° and exit angle of 60°, you always lose speed.
I could try replacing the angle with a variable and setting a constraint of x>0 and see if the free version of wolfram alpha would spit out something, but just replacing the 60 with y is spitting out some convincing solutions, since in those x is never greater than 0.
PS: Thanks for taking the time to explain, the fact that you went out of your way to draw the diagrams is not lost on me. I unfortunately still don’t see it, but I really do appreciate the effort!
I’m sorry, but this comment thread genuinely makes me feel like I’m going insane. You seem to have explained exactly the same thing as me, with the same example, and none of it includes the “fall for longer before you catch up” bit.
As for the orbit not curving, yeah, I think you’re right - the obvious case is if you’re sitting stationary on the planet’s orbit, but the curious case is if you’re approaching from the sun, with the planet’s velocity plus velocity away from the sun. If I’m not mistaken, in that case you’d end up with the same velocity (minus what you might have lost to the sun’s gravity), but on the other side of the planet’s gravity well, which means you still gained energy.
Ayy, I’m not crazy, that sounds like exactly what I described… The only question is, is the explanation of “you spend longer falling” is bs, or if it makes sense if you conceptualize it differently?
Right, but as I explained, it’s the how that doesn’t make sense to me - the explanation that you “fall for longer” doesn’t make sense, since 1. with how orbits work, it takes the same energy and time to “fall” as it does to ascend, and 2. at these scales you can use the planet as an inertial frame of reference, so the angle of approach doesn’t matter for how “long” you “fall”, it’ll be the same regardless of whether you’re moving towards or away from the planet.
I’m confused, but this doesn’t make sense to me.
It shouldn’t matter whether you’re moving in the same direction or not for this, because ultimately it’s all relative - if you set the planet as the frame of reference, the direction you come in from doesn’t matter - just the velocity and angle.
What I can see working is calculating the in and out angles - if the exit velocity is at a sharper angle relative to the planets velocity than the entrance angle, then your exit velocity “gains” more of the planet’s velocity than the entrance velocity “loses”.
If you were completely stationary, from the planet’s point of reference, you’re moving with the velocity of the planet. If you then did half an orbit, exiting in the other direction (theoretically), from the planet’s point of reference you have the same speed, just in the other direction - but from the sun’s point of reference, you’re now moving at the planet’s speed on top of the planet’s own speed, thus gaining double the velocity of the planet.
The issue is, of course, I have no idea if I’m making sense, or missing the point.
This comment is completely fine, no weird empty lines. I guess it might be some weird bug in jerboa, I’d look into it but I’ll probably forget :V
I disagree, runbacks are as much difficulty as having to recover your currency after death, or even having to recover your items after dying in Minecraft. It’s a punishment for dying, and a way to make you treat it seriously.
It can incentivise the wrong things, punish experimentation and make players stick with what they know, even if better options exist. You’re free to dislike it, and it has downsides, but dismissing it as “not difficulty” is just dishonest.