Random thought of the day
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
@xaade said in Random thought of the day:
@JBert said in Random thought of the day:
or if "anybody could be tricked into it"
No.
Problem solved.
Next problem?
How to convince lawyers.
I'm not sure about lawyers.
In a debate it would only take demonstrating that one person is capable of not committing the crimes when there is an opportunity that absolutely convinces the person there will be no consequences.
Then "anybody" would be invalid.
However, I'm sure lawyers would be interested, not in anybody, but whether the average person would be capable.
That said, I think the spirit of the idea is invalid. If we, as a species are truly that incapable of avoiding stealing stuff, does that mean we should just allow theft? The argument basically says it's the trappers fault for providing the opportunity. If a trapper is culpable, then does that mean we are unintentionally at fault for theft by leaving doors unlocked by accident?
The whole concept of a justice system unravels at that point.
-
@xaade said in Random thought of the day:
I think the spirit of the idea is invalid.
does that mean we should just allow theft?
The whole concept of a justice system unravels at that point.
Ding ding ding!
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
Ding ding ding!
All thefts could be labeled "unintentional entrapment"
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
@tharpa said in Random thought of the day:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska Not to mention that even currently, a 7/10 is a horrible score, an 8/10 is a bad score, and a 9/10 is normal. Same goes for 5-star ratings: anything that's not 4.5+ is bad. And the distribution is bimodal: lots of 5's and 1's, few in between. And a 5-point scale is much better than a 10-point scale.
This is why I'm in favor of a binary rating system. You compare two items (such as two games) to each other. So all you're saying is that one game is overall better or worse than the other one.
As long as there's only two games in existence.
There's more than just chess and checkers?
-
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
There's more than just chess and checkers?
You forgot Monopoly
-
@hungrier said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska No, now they're rated based on if they're inspired by historical events and characters, and if the work of fiction was designed, developed and produced by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs.
...with no bonus points for being historically accurate. OTOH, more points are given for adhering to currently en vogue political correctness theory. (A multicultural development team will net them only a mild boost.)
-
@TimeBandit said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
There's more than just chess and checkers?
You forgot Monopoly
Okay, okay, you get a point, but come on, who really ever plays that one?
-
-
-
@djls45 Now, if you asked "How many play that game and finish it" it would be totally different
-
@TimeBandit said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
who really ever plays that one?
Too many people
No. Too many people own the game.
Playing it is another metric.
-
@TimeBandit said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 Now, if you asked "How many play that game and finish it" it would be totally different
...much less "according to the actual, official rules."
-
@djls45 I personally prefer the official rules of "Free parking as a NOP"
-
@kazitor
You savage barbarian! Do you know how much intense strategy it takes to set up to land on Free Parking for the free $500 plus all the income taxes, luxury taxes, and street repairs my opponents had to pitch in?!? And you just take those away with your narrow minded adherence to "official" rules?
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
How to convince lawyers.
Firing squad. Strictly speaking, that won't necessarily convince them, but at that point, it becomes rather .
-
You really should be able to call object functions on null objects. I want to be able to do
myString.IsNullOrEmpty()
instead of having to doString.IsNullOrEmpty(myString)
.And I don't see why you can't. The methods are not really attached to the object instance, they're attached to the class. There's the semantic argument that a null value is not a string, so you shouldn't be able to call methods on it, which isn't even true IMO (if it's not a string then what is it doing in a string-type variable?) and it shouldn't really matter if it were.
And it wouldn't change anything with the rest of the code. The moment a method tries to access an object property it would throw a NullArgumentException as usual (since those are part of the instance). And if it doesn't access any object properties, well, it's not really interacting with the object is it?
(You could even make it so that a null object is a valid object with all properties set to null, and pass the buck down the line? But I don't think that would benefit anyone)
-
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
@TimeBandit said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
There's more than just chess and checkers?
You forgot Monopoly
Okay, okay, you get a point, but come on, who really ever plays that one?
Me!
-
@anonymous234 I like languages where you can use ?. (or equivalent) to dereference everyting safely, if the object is null, ?. just returns null and won't call the method. If it is not null, it'll call the method on the object.
Combine with ?: to do stuff if any long call chain has a null somewhere.I like languages that do not allow null values at all even better.
-
public static bool IsNullOrEmpty(this string str) => string.IsNullOrEmpty(str);
And now you can.
-
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
You really should be able to call object functions on null objects. I want to be able to do
myString.IsNullOrEmpty()
instead of having to doString.IsNullOrEmpty(myString)
.And I don't see why you can't. The methods are not really attached to the object instance, they're attached to the class.
In most languages, this is not the declared class, but the actual class. In the below snipped, any functions called on
s
are the function overrides declared in theMyString
subclass, not the ones from theString
parent class. And it's even possible the only type at hand is an interface, which would not have function definitions at all.String s = new MyString(...);
-
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
You really should be able to call object functions on null objects. I want to be able to do
myString.IsNullOrEmpty()
instead of having to doString.IsNullOrEmpty(myString)
.And I don't see why you can't.
Vtable.
-
@pie_flavor said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
@TimeBandit said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
There's more than just chess and checkers?
You forgot Monopoly
Okay, okay, you get a point, but come on, who really ever plays that one?
Me!
And do you like it? If so, this is definitive proof that Earth-73 is really weird.
-
@remi I do. I played it a ton growing up. I also made
-
@pie_flavor said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
@TimeBandit said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
There's more than just chess and checkers?
You forgot Monopoly
Okay, okay, you get a point, but come on, who really ever plays that one?
Me!
Is it enjoyable to play alone? Or do you take turns playing as more than one participant? :P
-
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
You really should be able to call object functions on null objects. I want to be able to do
myString.IsNullOrEmpty()
instead of having to doString.IsNullOrEmpty(myString)
.And I don't see why you can't.
Vtable.
It should still be doable. But you'll probably create weird bugs when the null variable calls the parent class's version of the function, yet the subclassed object variable calls the derived/overridden function instead.
-
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
You really should be able to call object functions on null objects. I want to be able to do
myString.IsNullOrEmpty()
instead of having to doString.IsNullOrEmpty(myString)
.And I don't see why you can't.
Vtable.
It should still be doable.
Many things that should never ever be done are doable.
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
Many things that should never ever be done are doable.
resists doing "Yo Mama" joke.
-
Someone should clearly make "Triassic Park" and "Cretaceous Park" movies.
Then why stop there? Let's have Cambrian Park, Carboniferous Park, and all the others. Although Quaternary Park would probably be quite dull.
-
@kazitor said in Random thought of the day:
Quaternary Park would probably be quite dull.
(is eaten by Smilodon) (Smilodon is savaged by Terror Bird)
-
@Gribnit said in Random thought of the day:
@kazitor said in Random thought of the day:
Quaternary Park would probably be quite dull.
(is eaten by Smilodon) (Smilodon is savaged by Terror Bird)
Read that as "Smilodon is ravaged by Terror Bird"
-
I was thinking about how to record video so that you can prove it's real and not a deepfake or similar manipulated thing, for the near future (or even present?) when that will become a real issue when using security footage in court cases.
The first obvious thought is to add more camera angles so you can get a pseudo-3D image, which is much harder to fake. Then I thought, why not go even further and add some active measure? For example, project some pattern with infrared lights over the scene. The pattern could even have some cryptographic information embedded in it, so an attacker can't predict it but it can be verified to be the right one. You could still read it "in real time" and reproduce it, but it wold be really hard, and who knows what other tricks you could add on top of that.
Then I realised, that's exactly how the Kinect camera works! Only without the cryptographic part, but that could be added in software. Pretty crazy that Microsoft already manufactured the perfect solution to a future problem 8 years ago.
-
@anonymous234 What are you smoking?
-
This post is deleted!
-
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
Then I thought, why not go even further and add some active measure? For example, project some pattern with infrared lights over the scene.
And how exactly do you plan to record and distribute it? And have you thought what lossy compression (ie. what we use to store almost all video data in the world) would do to it?
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
And how exactly do you plan to record and distribute it?
With a camera.
-
@anonymous234 do regular cameras record infrared? Or will the entire CCTV/dashcam industry have to switch to specialist equipment?
-
@Gąska Most do, some have a filter, but I guess it would be better to combine both so you could get the image with and without.
I didn't think much about the practical details, I was just thinking about the idea of projecting cryptographic hashes to turn real scenes into signed messages.
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
@anonymous234 do regular cameras record infrared? Or will the entire CCTV/dashcam industry have to switch to specialist equipment?
Ever pointed a remote at a phone camera?
-
@Zecc said in Random thought of the day:
Ever pointed a remote at a phone camera?
It didn't change channel
-
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
projecting cryptographic hashes to turn real scenes into signed messages.
Suddenly all those sci-fi intro sequences with random overlays of numbers and shit suddenly make sense!
-
@Tsaukpaetra except those random numbers weren't cryptographically secure.
Is it at all possible to protect such infrared signatures from replay attacks?
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
@Tsaukpaetra except those random numbers weren't cryptographically secure.
Is it at all possible to protect such infrared signatures from replay attacks?
You add time and or nonce like usual
-
@Gribnit I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume it's mercury poisoning speaking, and not that you're unaware how easy it is to fake a timestamp.
-
@Gąska After I encrypt it with my private key go ahead.
Oh, I see that in your colossal arrogance you decided I meant "and do nothing else hur dur". Perhaps nonce could have clued you. But it did not.
-
@Gribnit you can encrypt it with nuclear missiles launch codes if you want - it doesn't make any harder to cut out from image and superimpose on other pictures. Do you even know what a replay attack is?
-
@Gąska It's this thing you prevent by signing the unique-fied fucking content, you arrogant twat.
The ways we have been using have been adding times or nonces, you arrogant twat.
They still seem applicable here, you arrogant twat. It's a fucking message after all, you arrogant twat.
-
@Gribnit and signing the fucking content requires much more than just flashing random numbers over the image in infrared. In fact, flashing random numbers in infrared doesn't help jack shit.
-
@Gąska If that's all you do. If the random number is a salt, could be part of a useful scheme. The best way to get to a useful scheme is of course to viciously attack each element on its own.
-
@Gribnit yes, yes, yes, and yes. But infrared emitter still doesn't help anything.