![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://slrpnk.net/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffry.gs%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fc6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
AI isn’t supposed to be creative, it’s isn’t even capable of that. It’s meant to min/max it’s evaluation criterion against a test dataset
It does this by regurgitating the training data associated with a given input as closely as possible
AI isn’t supposed to be creative, it’s isn’t even capable of that. It’s meant to min/max it’s evaluation criterion against a test dataset
It does this by regurgitating the training data associated with a given input as closely as possible
These people aren’t placing bets on who they want to win, they are placing bets where the house odds differ from the actual expected outcome. The people throwing big money on this are doing it based on actual data (amalgamating polls, etc), not just gut feelings.
If I think Kamala has a 45% chance of winning the election and the bookie is giving her implied odds of 40%, I should take that bet, because even though I think she will lose, I stand to make a 12.5% ROI on my bet. I can then hedge that bet on another bookmaker giving a 48% implied odds, and if enough people do this the bookmakers odds will converge on 44%
but either way I don’t think this “market” knew more than the mainstream media was telling us.
No, but it is a culmination of all the available public information (and some private information you won’t find elsewhere) in a single metric. If you read a single article you would assume there is either a 100% Biden drops out or a 0% chance - if you read every single news article in existence, aggregated all social media buzz, polls, etc, into a statistical likelihood, you would likely come out with a number that closely matches the odds.
Biden was only going to drop out once, so you can’t say how closely these odds matched the actual likelihood on this specific measure, but if you analyze hundreds of predictive markets like this, the implied odds pretty strongly correlate with the actual binomial outcomes
If you know the key is composed of English language words you can skip strings of letters like “ZRZP” and “TQK” and focus on sequences that actually occur in a dictionary
You don’t memorize RSA keys
No im saying if your password size is limited to a fixed number of characters, as is the case with RSA keys, words are substantially less secure
“can you string words to form a valid RSA key”
“Yes this is the most secure way to do it”
“No, it’s not when there is a fixed byte length”
-> where we are now
we are talking about RSA keys - you don’t memorize your RSA keys
if you rely on memorizing all your passwords, I assume that means you have ample password reuse, which is a million times worse than using a different less-secure password on every site
Sure but we aren’t talking about that
You memorize your RSA keys?
We are talking about RSA though, so there is a fixed character length and it isn’t meant to be remembered because your private key is stored on disk.
Yes the word method is better than a random character password when length is unbounded, but creating secure and memorable passwords is a bit of an oxymoron in today’s date and age - if you are relying on remembering your passwords that likely means you are reusing at least some of them, which is arguably one of the worst things you can do.
Words are the least secure way to generate a password of a given length because you are limiting your character set to 26, and character N gives you information about the character at position N+1
The most secure way to generate a password is to uniformly pick bytes from the entire character set using a suitable form of entropy
Edit: for the dozens of people still feeling the need to reply to me: RSA keys are fixed length, and you don’t need to memorize them. Using a dictionary of words to create your own RSA key is intentionally kneecapping the security of the key.
And then when you are finally hyped that season 2 is going to be packed with surfing, they announce its cancelled
It’s unavoidable - once the cheese gets hot enough the steam will either force the liquid cheese out of existing holes, or it will make its own holes.
Make sure they are fresh out of the freezer when you put them in, as this lets the outside crisp up more before the inside becomes lava. Once you get close to the prescribed cooking time, you need to just sit in front of the oven door and watch them, and as soon as 2-3 break open, take the whole tray out
a) hold a nail against the wall and b) hammer said nail into the wall. That took two hands. Drawing a weapon takes one.
Cool, I’m sure you also managed to hammer that nail in faster than the reaction time of the hypothetical assailant with a gun pointed at your head too, right?
Someone halfway up a ladder wouldn’t have even have a clean draw in that scenario without needing to ascend 2-3 more rungs to get their torso over the lip of the roof
“retreated down the ladder” is all the information we have to go on - presumably the cop was still climbing the ladder - really hard to draw your sidearm and incapacitate someone who has a rifle trained on you while simultaneously holding on to a ladder
He investigated the report that there was a shooter on the roof?
I simply stated that CICO isn’t the mechanism that keto uses.
It literally is though.
When you are in ketosis your CO increases, so even if your CI stays the same you will now be operating at a deficit
I was consuming about 150% of my normal pre-diet Calorie intake and losing 500g per day for a month. CICO is flatout not the mechanic used.
You are stating that without knowing your calories out, and asserting that the laws of thermodynamics aren’t real
Keto works due to two things: 1) proteins and fats are more filling than carbs, and 2) your basal metabolic rate increases when you are in ketosis
Top 91.9% means that only 8.1% of people are dumber than you
It’s not to be confused with being “in the 91.9th percentile”, which is the literal opposite