Musical chairs would indeed be a “fast paced and exciting” environment, but in the least desirable way.

Obligatory mention: !keming@lemmy.world

Approximately 90% of people are right-handed. In European writing systems that use quills and pens, reading and writing left-to-right makes more sense so that you can hold the pen in your right hand and drag it rightward, not into the ink you just laid down.

In East Asia, before writing on paper was a thing, they wrote using inscribed bone, but then eventually moved to vertical wood boards, bound together by string. Each character on the board would be ready from top-to-bottom, and then move to the next board. The most logical choice for a right handed person is to stack the wood pile on their left, and use their right hand to draw the next board to meet their gaze, then set it down on their right. Later, this bundle of wood boards would become paper scrolls, but would still be pulled from left-to-right by a right-handed scholar.

For this reason, the historical writing system common to China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam for centuries was read right-to-left (because instead of scrolls, we have pages, which can be moved easily). But the native Korean script is left-to-right, as is the modern Vietnamese script. And Chinese and Japanese in the 20th Century switched to left-to-right. And yet, Japanese books are still ordered “backwards” so that the title page is what Westerners would say is the back of the book, and manga panels are read from the right side toward the left.

So far as I’m aware, this means some Japanese signs can be rendered left-to-right (modern), right-to-left (historical standard), and top-to-bottom (traditional). The only orientation that’s disallowed is bottom-to-top (although vertical news tickers will do this, so that readers see the text from top-to-bottom).

It all boils down to right handedness, but it depends on whether your hand is moving, or the text is moving.

Are ham radio operators in the EU able to use LoRa radios and be exempt from duty cycle limitations?

Admittedly, I haven’t finished reflashing my formerly-Meshtastic LoRA radios with MeshCore yet, so I haven’t been able to play around with it yet. Although both mesh technologies are decent sized near me, I was swayed to MeshCore because I started looking into how the mesh algorithm works for both. No extra license, since MeshCore supports roughly the same hardware as Meshtastic.

And what I learned – esp from following the #meshtastic and #meshcore hashtags on Mastodon – is that Meshtastic has some awful flooding behavior to send messages. Having worked in computer networks, this is a recipe for limiting the max size and performance of the mesh. Whereas MeshCore has a more sensible routing protocol for passing messages along.

My opinion is that mesh networking’s most important use-case should be reliability, since when everything else (eg fibre, cellular, landlines) stops working, people should be able to self organize and build a working communications system. This includes scenarios where people are sparsely spaced (eg hurricane disaster with people on rooftops awaiting rescue) but also extremely dense scenarios (eg a protest where the authorities intentionally shut off phone towers, or a Taylor Swift concert where data networks are completely congested). Meshtastic’s flooding would struggle in the latter scenario, to send a distress message away from the immediate vicinity. Whereas MeshCore would at least try to intelligently route through nodes that didn’t already receive the initial message.

Very interesting! Im no longer pursuing Meshtastic – I’m changing over my hardware to run MeshCore now – but this is quite a neat thing you’ve done here.

As an aside, if you later want to have full networking connectivity (Layer 2) using the same style of encoding the data as messages, PPP is what could do that. If transported over Meshtastic, PPP could give you a standard IP network, and on top of that, you could use SSH to securely access your remote machine.

It would probably be very slow, but PPP was also used for dial-up so it’s very accommodating. The limiting factor would be whether the Meshtastic local mesh would be jammed up from so many messages.

I’ve only heard bits and pieces of this from friends and strangers through some specific events so far

Can you tell us what bits you’ve heard, so that we don’t have to give redundant answers?

The catch with everything that implements E2EE is that, at the end of the day, the humans at each end of the message have to decrypt the message to read it. And that process can leave trails, with the most sophisticated being variations of Van Eck phreaking (spying on a CRT monitor by detecting EM waves), and the least sophisticated being someone that glances over the person’s shoulder and sees the messages on their phone.

In the middle would be cache files left on a phone or from a web browser, and these are the most damning because they will just be laying there, unknown, waiting to be discovered. Whereas the techniques above are active attacks, which require good timing to get even one message.

The other avenue is if anyone in the conversation has screenshots of the convo, or if they’re old-school and actually print out each conversation into paper. Especially if they’re an informant or want to catalog some blackmail for later use.

In short, opsec is hard to do 100% of the time. And it’s the 1% of slip-ups that can give away the game. As an example, we need only look to the group chat of cabinet members using a knock-off Signal client to discuss military operations, and accidentally added the editor of The Atlantic to the chat. Although that scenario highlights more PEBKAC than SIGINT.

Sadly, I’m not familiar enough with Nginx Proxy Manager to know. But I would imagine that there must be a different way to achieve the same result.

BTW, when I read “NPM”, I first think of Node.JS Package Manager. The title of your post may be confusing, and you might consider editing it to spell out the name of Nginx Proxy Manager.

I’ll take a stab at the question. But I’ll need to lay some foundational background information.

When an adversarial network is blocking connections to the Signal servers, the Signal app will not function. Outbound messages will still be encrypted, but they can’t be delivered to their intended destination. The remedy is to use a proxy, which is a server that isn’t blocked by the adversarial network and which will act as a relay, forwarding all packets to the Signal servers. The proxy cannot decrypt any of the messages, and a malicious proxy is no worse than blocking access to the Signal servers directly. A Signal proxy specifically forwards only to/from the Signal servers; this is not an open proxy.

The Signal TLS Proxy repo contains a Docker Compose file, which will launch Nginx as a reverse proxy. When a Signal app connects to the proxy at port 80 or 443, the proxy will – in the background – open a connection to the Signal servers. That’s basically all it does. They ostensibly wrote the proxy as a Docker Compose file, because that’s fairly easy to set up for most people.

But now, in your situation, you already have a reverse proxy for your selfhosting stack. While you could run Signal’s reverse proxy in the background and then have your main reverse proxy forward to that one, it would make more sense to configure your main reverse proxy to directly do what the Signal reverse proxy would do.

That is, when your main proxy sees one of the dozen subdomains for the Signal server, it should perform reverse proxying to those subdomains. Normally, for the rest of your self hosting arrangement, the reverse proxy would target some container that is running on your LAN. But in this specific case, the target is actually out on the public Internet. So the original connection comes in from the Internet, and the target is somewhere out there too. Your reverse proxy simply is a relay station.

There is nothing particularly special about Signal choosing to use Nginx in reverse proxy mode, in that repo. But it happens to be that you are already using Nginx Proxy Manager. So it’s reasonable to try porting Signal’s configuration file so that it runs natively with your Nginx Proxy Manager.

What happens if Signal updates that repo to include a new subdomain? Well, you wouldn’t receive that update unless you specifically check for it. And then update your proxy configuration. So that’s one downside.

But seeing as the Signal app demands port 80 and 443, and you already use those ports for your reverse proxy, there is no way to avoid programming your reverse proxy to know the dozen subdomains. Your main reverse proxy cannot send the packets to the Signal reverse proxy if your main proxy cannot even identify that traffic.

The simple answer is probably no, because even where those experts aren’t driven solely by the pursuit of money – as in, they might actually want to improve the state of the art, protect people from harm, prevent the encroachment of the surveillance state, etc… – they are still only human. And that means they have only so much time on this blue earth. If they spend their time answering simple questions that could have been found on the first page of a web search, that’s taking time away from other pursuits in the field.

Necessarily then, don’t be surprised if some experts ask for a minimum consultation fee, as a way to weed out the trivial stuff. If nothing else, if their labor is to have any meaning at all when they do their work professionally, they must value it consistently as a non-zero quantity. Do not demand that people value their labor at zero.

With that out of the way, if you do have a question that can’t be answered by searching existing literature or the web, then the next best is to ask in an informal forum, like here on Lemmy. Worst case is that no one else knows. But best case is that someone works in the field and is bored on their lunch break, so they’ll help point you in the right direction. They may even connect you to a recognized expert, if the question is interesting enough.

Above all, what you absolutely must not do is something like emailing a public mailing list for cryptography experts, gathered to examine the requirements of internet security, to look at your handmade data encryption scheme, which is so faulty that it causes third-party embarrassment when read a decade later.

You were in fact lucky that they paid any attention at all to your proposal, and they’ve already given you many hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of free consultancy between them

Don’t be the person that causes someone to be have to write this.

There are separate criminal and civil offenses when it comes to copyright infringement, assuming USA. Very generally, under criminal law, it is an offense to distribute copyrighted material without the right or license to do so. Note the word “distribute”, meaning that the crime relates to the act of copying and sharing the work, and usually does not include the receiving of such a work.

That is to say, it’s generally understood that mere possession of a copyrighted work is not sufficient to prove that it was in your possession for the purpose of later distribution. A criminal prosecution would have to show that you did, in fact, infringe the copyright by distributing a copy to someone or somewhere else.

Separately, civil penalties can be sought by the copyright owner, against someone found either distributing their work, or possessing the work without a license. In this case, the copyright owner has to do the legwork to identify offenders, and then would file a civil lawsuit against them. The government is uninvolved with this, except to the extent that the court is a branch of the federal government. The penalty would be money damage, and while a judgement could be quite large – due to the insanity of minimum damages, courtesy of the DMCA – there is no prospect of jail time here.

So as an example, buying a bootleg DVD for $2 and keeping it in your house would not accrue criminal liability, although if police were searching your house – which they can only do with a warrant, or your consent – they could tip-off the copyright owner and you could later receive a civil lawsuit.

Likewise, downloading media using Megaupload, usually also doesn’t meet the “distribution” requirement in criminal law, but still opens the door to civil liability if the copyright owner discovers it. However, something like BitTorrent which uploads to other peers, that would meet the distribution requirement.

To that end, if officers searching your home – make sure to say that you don’t consent to any searches – find a running BitTorrent server and it’s actively sharing copyrighted media, that’s criminal and civil liability. But if they only find the media but can’t find evidence of actual uploading/distributing, and can’t get evidence from the ISP or anyone else, then the criminal case would be non-existent.

That said, in a bygone era, if multiple physical copies of the same copyrighted media were found in your house, such as officers finding a powered-off DVD copy machine that has sixty handwritten discs all labeled “Riven: The Sequel to Myst” next to it, then the criminal evidence is present. Prosecutors can likely convince a jury that you’re the one who operated the machine to make those copies – because you had the ability (the machine) – and that nobody would make so many copies as personal backups. The quantity can only suggest an intent to distribute. This is not unlike how a huge amount of marijuana is chargeable as “possession with intent to distribute”, although drug laws have a different type of illogical-ness.

This logic does not apply when dealing with digital files, because computers naturally keep copies as part of handling files. A cache file temporarily created by VLC does not turn people into copyright criminals.

TL;DR: when the police are searching your house, tell them: 1) you do not consent to any searches, 2) you want a copy of their warrant, which should be signed by a judicial judge, and 3) do not volunteer info to the police; call and talk to a lawyer

If this is about that period of human history where we had long-distance transportation (ie railroads) but didn’t yet have mass communication infrastructure that isn’t the postal service – so 1830s to 1860s – then I think the answer is to just plan to meet the other person at a certain place every month.

To use modern parlance, put a recurring meeting on their calendar.

It can be, although the example I’ve given where each counter is a discrete part is probably no longer the case. It’s likely that larger ICs which encompass all the requisite functionality can do the job, at lower cost than individual parts.

But those ICs probably can’t do 4:20:69, so I didn’t bother mentioning that.

I should point out that for the hour counter, it’s only a 5 bit counter, since the max value for hours is 23, which fits into 5 bits.

So 566 is not quite the devil’s work, but certainly very close.

(I’m going to take the question seriously)

Supposing that you’re asking about a digital clock as a standalone appliance – because doing the 69th second in software would be trivial, and doing it with an analog clock is nigh impossible – I believe it can be done.

A run-of-the-mill digital clock uses what’s known as a 7-segment display, one for each of the digits of the time. It’s called 7-segment (or 7-seg) because there are seven distinct lines that can be lit up or darkened, which will write out a number between 0 to 9.

In this way, six 7seg displays and some commas are sufficient to build a digital clock. However, we need to carefully consider whether the 7seg displays have all seven segments. In some commercial applications, where it’s known that some numbers will never appear, they will actually remove some segments, to save cost.

For example, in the typical American digital clock, the time is displayed in 12-hour time. This means the left digit of the hour will only ever be 0 or 1. So some cheap clocks will actually choose to build that digit using just 2 segments. When the hour is 10 or greater, those 2 segments can display the necessary!number 1. When the hour is less than 10, they just don’t light up that digit at all. This also makes the clock incapable of 24-hour time.

Fortunately though, to implement your idea of the 69th second, we don’t have this problem. Although it’s true that the left digit of the seconds only goes from 0 to 5 inclusive, the fact remains that those digits do actually require all 7 segments of a 7seg display. So we can display a number six without issue.

Now, as for how to modify the digital clock circuitry, that’s a bit harder but not impossible. The classic construction of a digital clock is as follows: the 60 Hz AC line frequency (or 50 Hz outside North America) is passed from the high-voltage circuitry to the low-voltage circuitry using an opto-isolator, which turns it into a square wave that oscillates 60 times per second.

Specifically, there are 120 transitions per second, with 60 of them being a low-to-high transition and the other 60 being a high-to-low transition. Let’s say we only care about the low-to-high. We now send that signal to a counter circuit, which is very similar to a mechanical odometer. For every transition of the oscillating signal, the counter advances by one. The counter counts in binary, and has six bits, because our goal is to count up to 59, to know when a full second has elapsed. We pair the counter with an AND circuit, which is checking for when the counter has the value 111011 (that’s to in decimal). If so, the AND will force the next value of the counter to 000000, and so this counter resets every 1 second. This counter will never actually register a value of 60, because it is cut off after 59.

Drawing from that AND circuit that triggers once per second, this new signal is a 1 Hz signal, also known as 1PPS (pulse per second). We can now feed this into another similar counter that resets at 59, which gives us a signal when a minute (60 seconds) has elapsed. And from that counter, we can feed it into yet another counter, for when 1 hour (60 minutes) has passed. And yet again, we can feed that too into a counter for either 12 hours or 24 hours.

In this way, the final three counters are recording the time in seconds, minutes, and hours, which is the whole point of a clock appliance. But these counters are in binary; how do we turn on the 7seg display to show the numbers? This final aspect is handled using dedicated chips for the task, known as 7seg drivers. Although the simplest chips will drive only a single digit, there are variants that handle two adjacent digits, which we will use. Such a chip accepts a 7 bit binary value and has a lookup table to display the correct pair of digits on the 7seg displays. Suppose the input is 0101010 (42 in decimal), then the driver will illuminate four segments on the left (to make the number 4) and five segments on the right (to make the number 5). Note that our counter is 6 bits but the driver accepts 7 bits; this is tolerable because the left-most bit is usually forced to always be zero (more on this later).

So that’s how a simple digital clock works. Now we modify it for 69th second operation. The first issue is that our 6-bit counter for seconds will only go from 0-59 inclusive. We can fix this by replacing it with a 7 bit counter, and then modifying the AND circuit to keep advancing after 59, but only when the hour=04 and minute=20. This way, the clock works as normal for all times except 4:20. And when it’s actually 4:20, the seconds will advance through 59 and get to 60. And 61, 62, and so on.

But we must make sure to stop it after 69, so we need another AND circuit to detect when the counter reaches 69. And more importantly, we can’t just zero out the counter; we must force the next counter value to be 10, because otherwise the time is wrong.

It’s very easy to zero out a counter, but it takes a bit of extra circuitry to load a specific value into the counter. But it can be done. And if we do that, we finally have counters suitable for 69th second operation. Because numbers 64 and higher require 7 bits to represent in binary, we can provide the 7th bit to the 7seg driver, and it will show the numbers correctly on the 7seg display without any further changes.

TL;DR: it can absolutely be done, with only some small amount of EE work

as someone has to lead

At this particular moment, the people of Minnesota are self-organizing the resistance against the invasion of their state, with no unified leadership structure in place. So I wouldn’t say it’s always mandatory.

Long live l’etoile du nord.

An indisputable use-case for supercomputers is the computation of next-day and next-week weather models. By definition, a next-day weather prediction is utterly useless if it takes longer than a day to compute. And is progressively more useful if it can be computed even an hour faster, since that’s more time to warn motorists to stay off the road, more time to plan evacuation routes, more time for farmers to adjust crop management, more time for everything. NOAA in the USA draws in sensor data from all of North America, and since weather is locally-affecting but globally-influenced, this still isn’t enough for a perfect weather model. Even today, there is more data that could be consumed by models, but cannot due to making the predictions take longer. The only solution there is to raise the bar yet again, expanding the supercomputers used.

Supercomputers are not super because they’re bigger. They are super because they can do gargantuan tasks within the required deadlines.

With 30 years of outlook remaining, I would wonder if it’s even worth doing the Roth contributions. Ostensibly, you’re able to get an income tax deduction if you had more Traditional 401k/403b contributions, so it looks like some tax savings are being left on the table, by paying 22% marginal income tax now, when instead you could be paying tax on it upon withdrawal in 30 years.

That said, if whether future tax rates will be higher or lower is a question that keeps you up at night, then keeping the contribution as-is is worthwhile. The Boglehead approach to risk tolerance is to optimize but not to the point that it would cause you consternation. That is to say, you are playing the long-game and must make decisions that are sustainable for the long-term.

deleted by creator