orlp

It's not (just) about cheap labor. The sheer density of resources and knowledge in Shenzhen is just insane.

Manufacturing at small to medium scales is so heavily determined by small blockers/latencies. Missing some component, or need a modified PCB? In the US or Europe you'd be happy to find a replacement within a week, or more likely have to wait a month for it to come from China. In Shenzhen you can probably walk 2km and pick it up yourself in under an hour.

> There is a lot of cynicism in this thread but the fact this is still open and hour later ends the narrative in my view.

Clearly people aren't cynical enough.

I find it strange no one in this thread has even considered the possibility that the private key of the wallet isn't on the machine.

OP gets their working exploit neatly logged (or even multiple approaches), keeps the money, strengthens the illusion the exploit isn't that bad, and gets a free $500 on top from someone who added to the wallet.

Math isn't a science. The scientific method is irrelevant for it.

Block-level full disk encryption? AES-CTR would require a per-write nonce.

Encrypting UUIDs in a database?

ISO 9564-1 PIN encryption?

AES is used for a whole lot more than just encryption in CTR mode.

`values` might be quite large (up to W), without `values_agg` getting the current window value would be O(W) rather than O(1).

Note that there isn't a `finalize` call, only an `eval`, which gives the current aggregate over the window. You typically use these sliding window functions in a way where you want to get the current value every time the window moves.

> If you push, then pop, you should have the same data as you started with.

That's the case for a LIFO queue, but not a FIFO queue. Both commonly use the push/pop nomenclature.

That's right, and one more property I consider very important for numerical stability:

- The aggregate only depends on the value currently in the window.

Most problems caused by NaNs/infinities/catastrophic cancellation/etc in sliding windows are covered by this property.

I don't like `shift` as a name because it might give the impression the entire window shifts. Push increases the window size by one and pop decreases the window size by one (evicting the earliest pushed element).

In my mental model `shift` would move the entire window, it would be one push + one pop.

My question wasn't one for right now, it's an ongoing question as more of the field starts adopting AI.

> I enjoy programming and producing high quality work. Why would I want to give up the thing I find fun and produce something subpar?

No one who cares wants to. That's not the question.

The question is whether you can continue to get paid doing so.

Sadly the experience with physical products tells us that the vast majority of people prefer cheap disposable crap over expensive craftsmanship.

It's likely that way more than just one of these is wrong. But even if it turns out 80% is wrong this is still 100+ results...

I'm more worried about them doing bad things at the behest of people who want them to do bad things.

That is 1. immediately technically possible, and 2. realistic.

If you need a source for 2 I'd suggest you open any history book.