mircea_popescu: meanwhile, some installs incorectly config'd (ancient ?) eat a tags

mircea_popescu: i dunno that it's a bug, just don't leave < floating around.

mircea_popescu: ahh, feedbot conveniently pointed to me diana_coman 's comment. this thing is so fucking useful, making me look like a cyborg

mircea_popescu: can be extended a thousand times, and then broken.

mircea_popescu: that's why nobody has a working system : 1. any meaningful interpretation of "categories" reduces to "tags", so even though implementations give "the choice" it is a dud choice ; and 2. any meaningful implementation of tags requires they change with the blog, whereas every implementation presumes to enter them at the time of publishing (which coincidentally but harmfully overlaps with the "don't alter history" imperative)

mircea_popescu: imo a correct tagging mechanism is the one item missing from http://trilema.com/2019/what-is-a-blog-complete-spec-inside/

mircea_popescu: on one hand, something simple like "tag each article with the 12 most frequently occuring live words over 3 characters long ; keep a central list of "dead" words that occur in more than x% of articles, re-tag all articles tagged with one of the words there"

mircea_popescu: lol. kinda the purpose of a good rand

mircea_popescu: diana_coman, srlsy ? the core of the argument was that google lists a supposed number of results, in the bns, but it never disgorges any significant count

mircea_popescu: make yourself a spyked-genesises-stolen-crap sig, use that.

mircea_popescu: this understanding is current as of cca 2016. meanwhile we agreed that because a) it is preferrable to work with republican rather than imperial items and to prevent more imperial seepage than needed ; and because b) there's no limit to signature count as per long standing observations and discussions (with a very early asciilifeform cca 2013 maybe) then therefore the correct approach is to sign things early, to get them i

mircea_popescu: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/trilema/2019-08-22#1930241 << rather's the case, dude watched so much seinfeld he's so very firmly committed to non-committal he'll very happily die of it just to make a point "to the world". whatevers.

mircea_popescu: The time to whine about "what it all means" etcetera is henceforth, 'till forever."

mircea_popescu: "Needless to say, I am unamused ; and, to answer the original inquiry in firmer terms containing no ifs or buts : no, I personally have no further interest in hearing what phf may have to say on any topic. The time for "ok then, I will get my logger to spec by X date and hope to have my blog up by Y date" came and went, sometime yesterday.

mircea_popescu: a a. aite.

mircea_popescu: now help me out here. is the answer "late aug/early sept i will publish my sept workplan which'll include a date at which i intend to publish the answer to that q" ?

mircea_popescu: so is the idea feedbot gets abandoned a la lobbes' orig bot ?

mircea_popescu: yes, that wasn't in discussion. but the current plan takes you to week 35, after which comes week 36 and a new plan ?

mircea_popescu: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/trilema/2019-08-22#1930228 << this is definitely a good q. /me goes to see on thetarpit.org, when's publishing scheduled.

mircea_popescu: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/trilema/2019-08-22#1930229 << you ever saw a ratchet work ?

mircea_popescu: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/trilema/2019-08-22#1930209 << it's likely this is because they got re-encoded on his end ; it's also the case nobody gives a shit.

mircea_popescu: nothing prohibits proggy reading 2mb ring buffer at gb/s speeds. it'll get... well, a lotta hashmaterial.

mircea_popescu: anyway, exactly what stretch factor to use is a bit of an open question. may be worth it to permit the thing to self-adjust, based on O read volume.

mircea_popescu: if indeed a stretch of say 8:1 is preferred, HF takes 1 byte makes 8, then the HG will work on 8byte buffers, take 8 bytes make 8 byres.

mircea_popescu: if you do, you stretch it into a "many" bytes. if you don't, you just prng those many bytes.

mircea_popescu: that's why the two-hash system : you either have a byte of FG, to put into O, or you don't.

mircea_popescu: ring buffers : Inner (small, 16kb to cpu-cache-size) ; Outer (large, 1 MB to swap partition size). each buffer has a writing head moving around it and a reading head moving around it, their position is W and R at any time.

mircea_popescu: imo correct design is 16kb to cpu-cache-sized inner ring buffer, wherein fg material is simply written into a loop, plain ; and from where high quality entropy is read blockingly. whenever the writing head threatens to overwrite the reading head, the overwritten bits are instead fed into outer ring ☟︎

mircea_popescu: the 18. a class you quited yes

mircea_popescu: why doesnt the main program loop call the sender thing ONCE AT A TIME ?

mircea_popescu: he did a pretty good job dissecting, imo

mircea_popescu: incidentally, the fucking notion of a byte-counted entropy pool is fucking ridiculous.

mircea_popescu: in any case it is obvious that using it as intended (ie, pretending fg is what the linuxtards call a "hardware random generator") is ~wasting it. i dun wanna initialize the middle 32 bytes out of anything.