MinekPo1 [She/Her]

no , its made explicitly as an android application .

tubular , which is a fork of newpipe , works for me . AFAIK its maintained by the person who used to maintain newpipe+sponsorblock

Agh I made a mistake in my code:

if (recalc || numbers[i] != (hashstate[i] & 0xffffffff)) {
	hashstate[i] = hasher.hash(((uint64_t)p << 32) | numbers[i]);
}

Since I decided to pack the hashes and previous number values into a single array and then forgot to actually properly format the values, the hash counts generated by my code were nonsense. Not sure why I did that honestly.

Also, my data analysis was trash, since even with the correct data, which as you noted is in a lineal correlation with n!, my reasoning suggests that its growing faster than it is.

Here is a plot of the incorrect ratios compared to the correct ones, which is the proper analysis and also clearly shows something is wrong.

Anyway, and this is totally unrelated to me losing an internet argument and not coping well with that, I optimized my solution a lot and turns out its actually faster to only preform the check you are doing once or twice and narrow it down from there. The checks I’m doing are for the last two elements and the midpoint (though I tried moving that about with seemingly no effect ???) with the end check going to a branch without a loop. I’m not exactly sure why, despite the hour or two I spent profiling, though my guess is that it has something to do with caching?

Also FYI I compared performance with -O3 and after modifying your implementation to use sdbm and to actually use the previous hash instead of the previous value (plus misc changes, see patch).

you forgot about updating the hashes of items after items which were modified , so while it could be slightly faster than O((n!×n)²) , not by much as my data shows .

in other words , every time you update the first hash you also need to update all the hashes after it , etcetera

so the complexity is O(n×n + n×(n-1)×(n-1)+…+n!×1) , though I dont know how to simplify that

actually all of my effort was wasted since calculating the hamming distance between two lists of n hashes has a complexity of O(n) not O(1) agh

I realized this right after walking away from my devices from this to eat something :(

edit : you can calculate the hamming distance one element at a time just after rehashing that element so nevermind

honestly I was very suspicious that you could get away with only calling the hash function once per permutation , but I couldn’t think how to prove one way or another.

so I implemented it, first in python for prototyping then in c++ for longer runs… well only half of it, ie iterating over permutations and computing the hash, but not doing anything with it. unfortunately my implementation is O(n²) anyway, unsure if there is a way to optimize it, whatever. code

as of writing I have results for lists of n ∈ 1 … 13 (13 took 18 minutes, 12 took about 1 minute, cant be bothered to run it for longer) and the number of hashes does not follow n! as your reasoning suggests, but closer to n! ⋅ n.

link for the desmos page

anyway with your proposed function it doesn’t seem to be possible to achieve O(n!²) complexity

also dont be so negative about your own creation. you could write an entire paper about this problem imho and have a problem with your name on it. though I would rather not have to title a paper “complexity of the magic lobster party problem” so yeah

unless the problem space includes all possible functions f , function f must itself have a complexity of at least n to use every number from both lists , else we can ignore some elements of either of the lists , therby lowering the complexity below O(n!²)

if the problem space does include all possible functions f , I feel like it will still be faster complexity wise to find what elements the function is dependant on than to assume it depends on every element , therefore either the problem cannot be solved in O(n!²) or it can be solved quicker

this would assume that finding the next prime is a linear operation , which is false

if I’m not mistaken , a example of a problem where O(n!²) is the optimal complexity is :

There are n traveling salespeople and n towns . find the path for each salesperson with each salesperson starting out in a unique town , such that the sum d₁ + 2 d₂ + … + n dₙ is minimised, where n is a positive natural number , dᵢ is the distance traveled by salesperson i and i is any natural number in the range 1 to n inclusive .

pre post edit, I realized you can implement a solution in 2(n!) :(

Mozilla has a history of harming me. I’ve documented this as one more case of attacks from Mozilla to go along with everything else. I see no reason to put up with it or tolerate it. Mozilla should expect that one day they’re going to be held accountable. If people at Mozilla aren’t aware of the unethical behavior it regularly engages in including an exploitative approach to contributors, they should inform themselves.

- Daniel Micay (im the linked mailing list thread)

it doesn’t seem like Micay had feuds previous to 2019 with Mozilla , though I was unable to find what he is referring to unfortunately .

I mean I get why its a thing but like ew , very uncomfy , ugh

As someone who is currently inside of mental hospital grounds , reminding people to take their meds isnt bad I’d say . /hj

On a serious side I feel like this isn’t that bad , as it is more general than using a specific issue as an insult

BTW, normal online credit/debit card purchases can require 2fa. I got automatically enrolled, but I’m not about people who don’t use the mobile app, but SMS 2fa may be used as a fallback :/

I don’t as there is a service called blik in my country which seems private enough and is way more hassle free to use. It generates one time use codes for payment and requires user confirmation for each payment. Not sure how private it is on the back end, but it pretty much gets rid of the same risks virtual credit cards target. It’s also pretty well supported, both by banks and payment processors.

Again not sure how private it is on the back end, but, at least for me, its more user friendly than using a credit card so I cant be bothered.

Edit: the privacy policy for both blik and their website (I think?) is 13 pages, 9 of which give a detailed description of how they use cookies. Also the privacy regulations here are quite strict and they actually follow them, so you can not opt into cookies with as much effort as it takes to opt in. It is also a service made by banks, so I feel its quite trust wordy.

Also OP, if the banks web extention doesn’t require access to all websites, it probably won’t track you, at least more than your bank tracks you already.

Honestly I use both on my phone via RethinkDNS, which also can act as a firewall.

what softwaregore?

(55.2GB−41.3GB)/0b/s > 1y

(in reality it most likely weighs in past transfer rates a bit, so the transfer speed it uses is likely higher than zero.)

On a serious note, if I’m not mistaken, most cases of Tor users identity being uncovered is via information the user either unintentionally leaving information public, or privately told another user, which was made public due to a betrayal or a security breach.

In most other cases involve security flaws in Tor clients not the network, again if I’m not mistaken.

probably not the best solution in your use case, but you can open tabs in an existing Firefox instance via a shell script using the -new-tab flag.

I don’t have the will nor energy to argue with you, especially as another person gave a quite good rebutal of your main point. I will point to the countless acts of kindness one does to those in their surroundings and community, especially in times of crisis, like the fires and hurricanes that storm parts of the US.