insertwackynamehere

Members
  • Content count

    3272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About insertwackynamehere

  • Rank
    The Chewbacca defense gone nightmare
  1. Meltdown and Spectre apparently affect many devices from the last 20 years on a hardware level. The only fix is to wait for the OS-level software patches or stop using the hardware. Old OSes won’t be getting patches as they are no longer maintained.
  2. If they did do another doom movie it should be more like event horizon than old school bodybuilder action flick. I like the latter but I think something more like event horizon fits better, especially for cinema versus gameplay.
  3. I always had a soft spot for those old Doomsday models and hi-res textures. I guess there’s issues with them but as a kid it blew my mind and I really enjoyed them. I’m not sure what alternatives exist now but this was back in like 2005 or whenever.
  4. Let's recap the first two posts in the thread. > Anyway, what is your opinion on such secrets that get blocked off in map progression? > I hate them. I hate when completionism can be thwarted by exploring incorrectly. I think it's cheap and stupid and not enjoyable.
  5. I hate them. I hate when completionism can be thwarted by exploring incorrectly. I think it's cheap and stupid and not enjoyable.
  6. I liked it, but then again I liked all the new Star Wars' and recently I rewatched the originals and prequels with someone who'd never seen them before and I realized that the prequels, while being weak, weren't completely terrible as much as just disappointing given the long wait for them. So maybe I'm not a good Star Wars fan, since I think there's a requirement that true Star Wars fans only like a maximum of 2 movies.
  7. What I’m describing is a block chain, not just a Merkle tree. It’s a blockchain sans proof of work. The merkle tree gathers transactions into a block, but that block still must exist. Each block represents a relative point in time T (relative to its sibling blocks) and is a hash value of the tree root plus the previous block hash. This final block hash is both used to seed the hash of block T+1 and also is widely published (rather than mined). The reason for gathering things into blocks is to provide discrete sample points. I haven’t read the Guardtime papers in a while and they may have originally been doing things slightly different (they used something called hash calendars), but blocks provide value whether or not it’s to use proof of work style mining or centralized “trust anchor” creation. edit: That being said, I read your link. It’s an interesting link as it provides non-buzzword statement on KSI. I was actually looking for info on them that wasn’t old papers or enterprise advertising for a while a few years ago, so thanks for that. You’re right that blockchain (tm) buzzword bullshit is frustratingly high. My point is that merkle tree and block based transaction ledgers (now known as “blockchains”) have value in their own right, but if your point is that the word now is overused and tied to the cryptocurrency buzzword marketing fest, then I get it, it is.
  8. That's a bit of an oversimplification. It's an interesting use of cryptographically secure hashes to bundle together an open-ended number of documents who's existence at a point in time needs to be proven. A small, widely distributable value can be used to cement many different document's existence proofs into a general point in time. Furthermore, this has actually existed prior to bitcoin and has seen use in enterprise solutions, government solutions, and even has some support in open source solutions such as with rsyslog (http://www.rsyslog.com/doc/master/configuration/modules/sigprov_ksi12.html). My point isn't to pump up bitcoin or coins in general, but to separate out the concept of a blockchain from the concept of pumped up cryptocurrencies, since people began to say "the blockchain has no value" when it's had value before it became something the public was excitedly dumping money into. Even one of the main parts of a basic blockchain, the Merkle tree, has existed since the 1970s. It's not that complicated stuff, but it's that it's cool that people are continuing to research methods of digital signing and timestamping that remove the need for trusted third parties and asymmetric cryptography.
  9. The point is that “the blockchain” has nothing to do with crypto currency or even decentralization as a concept. Merkle hash trees of documents can be chained together in a linear fashion as “blocks” such that each block is one final top level hash value that you could publish in the NYT and every document comes with a fairly small receipt of proof for its owner (and anyone the owner needs to prove to) that the document “belongs to” the published value. That’s kind of cool in my opinion, in its own right.
  10. I would recommend distinguishing blockchains from cryptocurrency or even decentralized blockchains relying on proof of work. Concepts very similar to the blockchain have been around for longer than bitcoin and bitcoin is just piecing together known technology (some of which had just lost patented status). The blockchain as a datastructure does have a lot of potential use, although now blockchain tends to mean decentralized with some sort of hardness association with creating a new block. A more general blockchain doesn't need to be decentralized and I think it's still a pretty cool datastructure with a lot of potential. There is an Estonian company called Guardtime which is now embracing the blockchain terminology but they were around for a while building out what they called "calendar trees" and other things of the sort of a digital signature service. They are mostly enterprise and government facing it seems, but their leads cryptographers have some interesting papers on the stuff. Anyway, a blockchain completely separated from people getting rich or even decentralization is still interesting and has a lot of use, in my opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_timestamping is the term used prior to blockchain entering the lexicon and there are papers about it from long before bitcoin (and the main contributors of those papers all seem to be Guardtime employees now).
  11. I don’t think a god that manifested itself as being all powerful within the bounds of a simulation would be perceived as a god. It would be seen as an authoritarian being with extensive power. The silence or perceived subtlety of a god, mixed with the notion they are outside of existence rather than merely infinitely powerful within it is what makes it “god” in peoples’ minds, and not a supreme leader that cannot be overthrown. Here’s a simple thought problem: if someone declared themselves god and took over your country would you bow down to them as god? What if it’s an AI taking over your world?
  12. I’m not sure I would separate gambling and gaming, it seems to be the closest similar thing. Both involve someone drawn in by positive (yet non-guaranteed) feedback with a hint of skill. Games might be a bit more skill heavy than some gambling, but things like Poker require skill as well, as does sports betting to a degree. The others may need to be handled differently as you say, but I’m skeptical that although treatments differ, it’s not all part of the same addictive tendencies plus depressive tendencies. Regardless I’m not a doctor, and I don’t even disagree with the assessment on any level. I just am bracing myself for “videogames are evil” pop science headlines that completely miss the point.
  13. Everything about it sounds reasonable except I don’t know why they single out gaming. They should just describe people with consumption based addictions and include as a footnote consumption can include food, drugs and/or media. The video games part isn’t wrong but it feels like a “hook” to get some clicks. They just describe escapism to the detriment of ones’ mental (and physical) health and name video games as a potential catalyst which seems pointless since the same can and should be applied to many different activities.
  14. I’d like to note also that across strata of class, you have currencies created out of collective agreement that a thing has value simply because it makes it easier for everyone involved. With the very elite you have art which is great for fencing value and transferring it among themselves. In poor drug torn areas, Tide detergent became a currency because it was agreed upon as a valuable asset that transcended its functional value into the realm of abstract value store and became the target of shoplifting (mining) and used explicitly for trade. The role of a non-fiat currency for the global internet age is a niche that some cryptocurrency will fill. Also this post seems out of context now looking at the surrounding posts, but just musing about it in general.
  15. Bitcoin will probably lose in the long run but cryptocurrency is the future, although it will exist alongside fiat as essentially digital gold. Cryptocurrencies will also stabilize and become less fun to play around with for getting rich quick dreams but actually become useful as currency. There is a bubble right now but that does not negate progress; at the end of the 90s there was a tech bubble and that’s not because tech wasn’t the future (it was) but because of misguided valuations and confusion as to what was actually relevant to the market and what was just tagging along. That being said, if you have money to play around with in crypto, you can enjoy some nice free money on the ride up through a strange mixture of gambling and day trading. However, if you are “investing” amounts that would lead to ruin on the downside, then you’re being extremely irresponsible. You should be weighing “would losing this money feel worse then missing out on the upside I’m betting on” because for me, I think crypto will continue to go up and feed me some large crumbs for a bit before the valuation bubble bursts and the downside for me is losing an amount of money that I’m comfortable writing off.