gradschool

I haven't tried this myself, but long ago someone on here in your position had a stroke of genius, which was to contact google's data protection office (the one in Ireland) requesting the complete archive of all the information google had on him. If you reach that level of this game, there will be one final test of your valor, when the google data protection officers ask if you want your account restored. Many before you have been kicked to the curb at that point by answering in the affirmative, only to be told to their chagrin that restoring people's accounts isn't the data protection officers' department. The correct answer is "I would like you to provide me with the complete archive of all information google has about me. One way of fulfilling this legal obligation would be to restore my account, but the way you do it is up to you." Shortly thereafter, the commenter was sent an email with a link that got him back into his account.

I do a weekly full back of the root filesystems of my Linux desktop and wife's laptop machines (while booted from rescue media) to zfs snapshots on a home file server running freebsd using rsync. The server holds snapshots for the most recent five weeks. A script on the server watches for changes and synchronizes its copy of my desktop home directory and paperless-ngx archive with a luks encrypted filesystem backed by a regular file, splits the image file into 1MB chunks, and uploads the changed chunks since the previous week to a cheap vps using rsync (typically 2 to 4 GB out of 400 total). The image file is on an external SSD connected to the server in case I have to grab it and run. (I prefer luks and ext4 for external media to the bsd equivalents so the server uses an Arch Linux vm with raw drive passthrough.) A script on the vps synchronizes it with redundant copies on three independent cloud storage providers using rclone, one of which stores monthly snapshots for the most recent seven months. I've memorized the passwords for the cloud providers and can access them without 2FA. A script on my laptop watches the cloud storage providers for changes and synchronizes one of them using rclone to a local copy on a rotating basis, reconstructs the luks filesystem image, and checks the SHA1 sum. My laptop also dumps a copy of the image to an old-timey slow-ass external usb hard drive once per quarter that holds the most recent four quarters. Once a year I back up the paperless archive and selected important files to DVD.

Little Bird

Wonder Man

The Penguin

Andor

Blue Eyed Samurai

The Patient

Say Nothing

It's tempting to go down the rabbit hole of getting creative with memory management as the author does, and maybe worthwhile for educational purposes, but has anyone here observed any noticeable performance gain from it? My impression is that libraries like mimalloc and tcmalloc are painstakingly optimized by specialists and unlikely to benefit from any casual embellishments beyond using the supported malloc and free functions for everything. What does the HN braintrust recommend?

I use a distinct key for each remote account. Although it's meant to be infeasible to infer a private key from a public key, distinct keys give me another layer of defence in depth in case an attacker ever finds a way to do it. Another advantage is that I can use passphrases selectively. For example, if I have an unpriviledged remote account with shell access disabled because it's used only for proxy tunnelling, it's less important to have a passphrase protecting its key than it would be for a remote root account, and not having one could be more convenient.

A great science fiction premise could be that a technologically advanced adversary genetically engineers mirror life people to work as spies and saboteurs at wiping out the rest of the population so they can have the world for themselves, but they get rumbled by dogs specially trained to sniff them out or various other means that might surprise and delight the reader. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the difference between the smell of an orange and a lemon is down to the chirality of a single molecule.

I'm assuming a finite alphabet and a finitely axiomatizable proof system per convention. I can't think of an uncountable set of propositions in which each can be written as a finite string of symbols, so that's what I was missing. Thank you for clearing this up for me.

I'm aware that very smart people have thought carefully about all this, but I still can't help thinking that this argument is unnecessarily complicated. It seems to me that a proof is something that can be written down as a finite string of symbols, so any proof system admits only countably many proofs. On the other hand, it's easy to make up an example of an uncountable set of propositions. That's too many for each of them to have a proof, so some of them must be unprovable. What am I missing?

Being obtuse comes effortlessly to me, I'm afraid. My comment pertains specifically to the kind mathematics that has no applications as a rebuttal to what I read as the author's main claim it will inevitably decline as a human endeavor. Saying that, I believe that AI has great potential to advance engineering.