Step 1 in this situatoon is to try and see if this is a known mathematically unsolved problem, and if it is, giving up.

Isn't this just trying to find a hamiltonian cycle, isn't this NP hard? That's when I would give up, especially because you put so many constraints in it to make it human walkable.

Edit: Of course you don't have to give up, but it's good to know what you get yourself into

Why would you give up just because something is NP hard if there are good algorithms to approximate a solution, and an approximate but good solution is useful?

Yeah, there are many problems which are np-hard in theory, but then realistic cases give you way more constraints that make them solvable. So many hard graph problems become way simpler when applied to real maps, because you know that if you start getting away from something, your minimum remaining distance grows. But on an abstract graph there's no real mapping to our dimensions.

That just means you didn’t encode the information you wanted into the graph.

There's no "information you wanted" in the plain np-hard version of traveling salesman for example. There's only cost. My point was that things get easier if you have the extra information and aren't solving the plain version anymore.

For constant n even exponential complexity reduces to constant time

I remember asking myself this question years ago, and came to 162 bits. I was just a kid back then so the logic is probably wrong but I do wonder how simple the encoding could be under those constraints...

Edit: Here are the Notes

0 Empty

10 Pawn

1100 Knight

1101 Rook

1110 Bishop

1111 Queen

32 + 32 + 472

2 times 6 bits: position of the kings

30 bits: color mask

120 + 2*6 + 30 = 162 bits

We can store the rest using the methods from the blog post and add 18 bits for promotion, giving 180 bits.

I'm sure this isn't the most efficient way, and I think I had other methods and considered things like the bishops being able to occupy 32 squares, though special casing doesn't make sense because of promotions.

Technically if you got 8 bishops/queens/knights/rooks You would occupy another 16 bits, giving 196 bits

I think the upper limit can be reduced at the cost of increasing the lower limit

EDIT2: I think I made the assumption at the time that to promote one piece you needed to capture at least one enemy pawn, giving the space for the two bits, which means the upper bound is actually 180 bits

Would love to see other people try in the comment section

Each pawn that wants to be promoted either takes: (a) another 'special' piece (knight/rook/bishop/queen), in which case it has already bought enough bit budget to later be promoted; or (b) another pawn, in which case this temporarily saves 1 bit (as the other pawn becomes a space), but then later we need 2 extra bits for the promotion, so we pay 1 bit extra per pawn in total

In the case of (b) there are now fewer pawns that can be promoted, and so worst case, we have to pay a budget of 1 bit per each of 8 promoted pawns.

So I think maximum required bits is only 162 + 8 = 170?

Among 4 pawns like white and black a&b pawns, you only need 1 pawn capture to allow the other 3 pawns to promote.

Great point.

So for each 4 pawn cluster, 1 pawn takes another pawn, and the net result is +1 bit once the captor promotes. The remaining 2 pawns in the cluster each need 2 extra bits when promoted => 2 x 2 = 4 bits. So 5 bits per 4-pawn cluster, of which there are 4.

So maximum representation would be 162 + (5 * 4) = 182 bits?

Yep, that increase the total in 3*3-4=5 bits, and you can repeat it 4 times, so the maximum is at least 162+4*5=182.

I'm trying to prove that is the worst case, but there are just too many cases. I guess I'll try to use a program o brute force it or just forget about it.

Actually, given this, we believe that 4 pawns must have been captured to reach 182 bits. So at least 4 pieces no longer need colors. If we store the color mask at the end, I think we can make it variable length, and truncate when no further pieces need colors assigned.

So then we need maximum 182 - 4 = 178 bits

EDIT: Equivalently, we could suffix each non-empty piece in the sequence with an associated color bit

Considering at least half of all squares are empty, further compression is in order for the empty space.

Also if you're encoding the king as a position instead of a byte sequence you would have to encode their space as empty, that's an extra 2 bits

I thought the same but realized you can retrospectively 'insert' the king positions into the position sequence, shifting the remaining sequence one square along for each king, so no more bits required though the data structure is unwieldy!

Only half of the squares are empty, you can almost make a chechboard pattern with the pieces. I don't expect an easy small worst case.

Honestly, if these image models still use diffusion with random seeds at their core, it might be actually more secure than blurring it yourself.

Honestly this should've been introduced with the new AI Features from the start, it's just shipping slightly too late to fully regain my trust.

I couldn't in good conscience work like that, I believe the risk of bad AI generated code due to the tiniest of output variation is far too high. Especially in systems that need to maintain a large state governed by many rules and edge cases.

I recommend having the AI do the typing while still reviewing, comprehensively testing and even dictating the exact shape of every line that you commit.

I remember another hacker news commentator describing these orbital data centers as a obviously bad idea to the point where any investments into that technology are incomprehensible. I share that sentiment, is there something I'm missing?

The point is to take the money, you see. It's the idiots who give it (which will involve looting the federal government for years to come) who will be screwed, not the guys running the scam. This should be evident after AI now. The entire industry is a narrative manufacturing machine aimed at separating investors from their money. That's all there is to it.

Some investments seem to be specifically crafted to attract people who do not understand X, where X is physics, or economics, biology, math, etc. And then giving in to greed and gambling is more fun than consulting an expert.

I wonder how many of these apparent start-up scams turned out to have genuine value.

It is all marketing stunts now. Make yourself look innovative to pump up the valuation that you can then dump.

nope, tis ordinary goldrush hijinx

Even after a global disaster, it's still there.

No idea how it could help, but.. it's a reason

> Even after a global disaster, it's still there.

> No idea how it could help, but.. it's a reason

With AI, the reason only needs to look as good as a six-fingered hand.

> Even after a global disaster, it's still there.

Ever heard of anti satellite weapons ? /s

I mean sure why not?

As long as contributions happen in good faith and not just for the sake of contributing, but I'm assuming there's already a system in place to ensure that for other civic services.

As someone who has worked for the government, I think you at least mistaken or very naive if you think that.

I wish I had known that there are no private github gists. Wish this was made more clear...

Agreed. Calling them "secret" seems ambiguous at best, outright misleading at worst, and definitely worth an added warning.

They have never offered them. I would assume the lack of them ever having existed would indicate they do not exist.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

From the guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Why?

My guess would be they're using some 3rd party library of "fake user agent detection", and this library just has a whitelist of what's "acceptable".

Given that the "fix" involves making the string reported "Possibly Apple, Possibly M1", I am going to say it's a blacklist.

There are two ways in which that could happen. Someone entered that combination into the list without thinking it though. Or more likely, they use a self-learning or heuristic filter that finds the combination 'Linux' and 'Apple M1' unusual because of how rare it is. Either way, it's easier to assume a mistake here because such a dark pattern doesn't make any business sense - notwithstanding their ethical reputation.

Sure, I doubt it's anything other than someone eagerly grabbing a list of long tail things and blacklisting them.

This is just a guess, but maybe "inconsistent" identifiers are a good signal of being an attack bot instead of a user.

Not defending that btw. Auto-generated signals are likely a problem for any desktop Linux user, not just Asahi, since most bots will run on Linux VPSs.