While I think you might be missing out, I totally respect your preferences. For the longest time it was also my preference.
In my case, ultimately, paranoia has won. :)
How much do you really trust discord? Or games on steam, or slack, or zoom client?
Flatpak does provide you, out of the box, with a sandbox for whole discord app. Sandbox is built on standard linux stuff like bubblewrap / seccomp / namespaces. This should prevent discord from, for example, accessing anything other than ~/Downloads (rw), ~/Pictures (ro) and so on. Or seeing what other processess are running on my pc. Or snooping in my ~/.ssh.
Some stuff might not work out of box and will require reading app's README or wiki. I imagine stuff like "john is listening to song - artist" would require additional permission or configuration. File sharing could be complicated if, for example, discord could not access my screenshots directory. Webcam, voice and screen sharing work out of box but are protected by "portals" provided by (in my case) KDE.
Discord, for example, does not pollute my /usr or /home. It stays somewhere in /var/lib/flatpak/ and keeps my user files in ~/.var/app/$APPNAME. Steam, Slack, all other "big proprietary apps" also keep their stuff in ~/.var/app/$APPNAME. It's not really a choice for them; flatpak just mounts proper directories in proper places and it works really well.
You can use `nsenter --target $PID --pid --net --mount --ipc` and look around to what kind of access flatpak apps have to your system.
Sorry about preaching, I just like that bit of additional separation from stuff I don't really want to trust or care about.
The cat isn't in some quantum state. Cat is locked in a box, with some poison and a Geiger counter. Poison is released when Geiger counter registers a particle.
Now, the process of atom decay that would be registered by a Geiger counter has some interesting properties and that's where the "quantum magic" happens.
(at least, that's my mental model of it; ask an expert, I'm not an expert)
the idea is that everything is in some quantum state, because quantum mechanics attempts to describe everything. The thought experiment is basically going from the well-observed (and explained in theory) superposition of a nuclear undergoing decay to the never-observed (but still valid in theory) superposition of a cat being both alive and dead.
Why should it be valid in theory tho? What is the purported bottleneck in physical reality that is supposed to exist whose presence makes the Schrodinger cat thought experiment realistic? How does sentient observation get the ball rolling and why couldn't that happen in the absence of such observation at this scale?
> identical twins at opposite ends of the autism spectrum.
I understand this is just a figure of speech, but this wording suggests that there are "two ends" of the spectrum and (as I understand it) autistic communities are trying to fight that myth.
As a laymen, isn't the spectrum just 'less autistic tendencies' and 'more autistic tendencies'? Is this a myth, or does the spectrum refer to something else? I was always under the impression that some people could be more autistic than others.
> "if you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism"
Isn't this true for just about any condition? It's not like people with ADHD or depression all behave exactly the same. I understand the urge to avoid categorizing people too broadly, but at the same time making the "taxonomy" of a condition hyperspecific is contradictory to having the label in the first place.
If saying "I have autism" has no descriptive power because this could mean a million different things, it seems like the term needs to be retired or narrowed to a specific set of behaviors/challenges.
Keep in mind that the current state of our knowledge of autism and other neurological conditions is still extremely new. Just 30 years ago, you would have been told that only young white boys exhibit autism.
There is debate within the autism community about ditching the catch-all term "autism", but I don't expect it to go anywhere. Broad labels like that are useful. I can tell a random person that I'm autistic and they generally understand that my "abnormal" behavior is innocuous. It's less useful to give a stranger a 30 minute lecture on my individual needs and challenges.
Read up on the controversy around asperger's and the "high/low functioning" dichotomy. These were standard measures for a long time and have only been dropped in the last ten years or so.
But more widely, there's a bunch of conditions of varying severity that might be caused by being in a car crash. That doesn't make "I was in a car crash" a bad answer to "what happened to your leg/eye/speech", it's just a fact.
Sure, but saying two people are the same magnitude is very different from saying they have the same level of touch sensitivity
Two complex numbers can have the same magnitude & be very far apart. Assuming we stick to the positive/positive quadrant it's not so bad. This metaphor (which, the spectrum itself is a metaphor, making this a metaphor of a metaphor) is to a 2d space tho, complex numbers are much more comparable based on magnitude as a result
> Two complex numbers can have the same magnitude & be very far apart.
Only if their magnitude is large; the maximum possible distance between two complex numbers of equal magnitude is double that magnitude.
And this limit is independent of the number of dimensions in the space you're working in; no two equal-magnitude vectors are ever farther apart than opposite vectors are.
If you stick to the first quadrant / octant / whatever n-dimensional division of space where all coordinates are positive... I don't think the number of dimensions makes any difference there either? Any two vectors define a plane (or a line, or, if they're both zero, a point), so two vectors in a 500-dimensional space can't be farther apart from each other than is possible for two vectors in a 2-dimensional space. Those 500-dimensional vectors are already embedded in a 2-dimensional space.
"very far" is of course relative: if we have tree vectors, two of length R and one of length 0.99*R, it's not outlandish to call the distance 2R between the two vectors of equal magnitude "very large" compared to the distance 0.01R between two vectors of dissimilar magnitude.
Your last comment is completely incorrect, for a point at (1,1,1,....) each extra dimension adds a constant 1 to the euclidean distance, so that in 500 dimensions a point at (1,1,1,....) is around 22.4 units away from the origin, while in two dimensions it is only 1.4 units away from the origin.
> for a point at (1,1,1,....) each extra dimension adds a constant 1 to the euclidean distance, so that in 500 dimensions a point at (1,1,1,....) is around 22.4 units away from the origin, while in two dimensions it is only 1.4 units away from the origin.
You're comparing vectors of different magnitudes. You could equally object that (200, 0) is much farther away from the origin than (2, 0) is. That's true, but so what? You're still in a two-dimensional space.
Are you under the impression that the "magnitude" of a vector and its "distance from the origin" are separate concepts? They aren't.
Consider simple two-dimensional space. A point at (1,0) is 1 unit away from the origin, as is a point at (0,1). But a point at (1,1) is approximately 1.4 away from the origin, i.e. sqrt(1^2 + 1^2). See Pythagorean theorem.
You keep referring to the magnitude of the vector itself rather than the magnitude of its components.
> Vectors with larger magnitudes have larger magnitudes than vectors with smaller magnitudes do?
Vectors with more dimensions have larger magnitudes than vectors with fewer components, for the same average magnitude of the components. The distance between the origin and (1,1) is less than the distance between the origin and (1,1,1) even though the components in both cases all have magnitude 1.
> Vectors with more dimensions have larger magnitudes than vectors with fewer components, for the same average magnitude of the components.
Is this related to something that's been said so far?
>> [sidethread] The next step is them doing a black knight and pretending they didn't put in the requirement by hand.
Obviously, I didn't. It was already there before I made my first comment. Look up:
>>> Two complex numbers can have the same magnitude & be very far apart.
The only thing we've ever been discussing is what can happen between vectors of the same magnitude. But if you want to discuss what can happen between vectors of different magnitudes... everything I said is still true! It's easy to construct low-dimensional vectors with high magnitudes, and in fact the construction that I already gave, of interpreting large vectors within a space defined partially by themselves, will do the job.
You rate someone on each factor using the same scale, e.g. a real number from 0 to 1, or a scale of 1 to 10. The scale is arbitrary but consistent.
Then someone whose "average" rating is 0.5 on a scale of 0 to 1 can be farther away from someone else whose "average" rating is 0.5 when there are more factors. On a linear scale two people both at 0.5 have distance zero. On a two dimensional scale, you could have one at (0, 1) and one at (1, 0) and then each of their averages is still 0.5 but their distance is ~1.4.
I think their point boils down to the fact that you can require that all vectors have the same magnitude, irrespective of the dimensionality of the space, which is of course true.
The next step is them doing a black knight and pretending they didn't put in the requirement by hand.
> Your last comment is completely incorrect, [random gibberish]
Here's what you were referring to:
>> If you stick to the first quadrant / octant / whatever n-dimensional division of space where all coordinates are positive... I don't think the number of dimensions makes any difference there either? Any two vectors define a plane (or a line, or, if they're both zero, a point), so two vectors in a 500-dimensional space can't be farther apart from each other than is possible for two vectors in a 2-dimensional space. Those 500-dimensional vectors are already embedded in a 2-dimensional space.
All of those statements are, obviously, true. What did you think was incorrect?
The question is whether each dimension is equally clinically significant, or equally impactful to quality of life. Talking about magnitude is definitely taking the analogy too far, as temping as it is.
That's exactly the issue, it is not as simple as "less" or "more" "autistic". I don't think I'll be able to explain it properly with my own words using english, sorry.
I'll just quote nih.gov:
> Autism is known as a “spectrum” disorder because there is wide variation in the type and severity of symptoms people experience.
and wikipedia:
> Autism is clinically regarded as a spectrum disorder, meaning that it can manifest very differently in each person. For example, some are nonspeaking, while others have proficient spoken language. Because of this, there is wide variation in the support needs of people across the autism spectrum.
"autistic and not-autistic" is not a spectrum, it can be described as a scalar value. A spectrum appears when you have many values (maybe continuum) with different values. Frequency spectrum is a good example: it shows you a lot of frequencies that intermixed in a signal.
The medical use of the word "spectrum" doesn't always describe a continuum, but classification criteria along multiple dimensions. Autism is no longer considered a "position on a scale".
If you tried to quantify different people's experience of autism you could maybe compare people by the amplitude of their symptoms (say a maximum or average), but you'd get a much better idea of the range of experiences with something like a Fourier transform. Imagine different symptoms are different wavelengths of light. Different people experience certain elements of the constellation of symptoms that we can "autism" to different degrees. And the goal is not really to get anyone to be "less autistic", but to help them live in society (or to build a society that allows them to better join in).
Yes, that’s true from the dictionary and the article is one place where its use makes sense. However, usually people say “on the spectrum“ to mean someone is a high functioning autistic. That is something that isn’t a helpful definition.
Sure, but if it's arbitrarily throwing things into the ESP and having them be run on boot, they presumably could do the same thing with Linux. Maybe secure boot would stop it, otherwise I don't see why it couldn't add another initrd to your boot config.
It isn't touching your disk at all. It's just providing an executable in a specific ACPI table that Windows explicitly supports running code from for the purpose of installing OEM-provided software.
I have Boox Note Air too, it is being used 70/30 as a note-taking device and tablet. It runs fastmail, k9mail, kindle app, firefox and wallabag just fine.
I wasn't trying to replace built-in note taking app, I think I may have gotten used to it? Honestly at this point I quite like it; it's fast (seriously, there is 0 lag when talking notes), it's capable and it honestly works just fine. I love the UI. I totally understand why you would want to replace it with one note or something like that - I'm just saying that current version works for me :).
I don't trust it yet however - I am using Onyx's sync servers, so my content is backed up without encryption to someone's else servers... Since we are talking about syncing - it also works with syncthing without any special integration; my notes are backed up immediately as pdfs on my other devices.
It is slow, if you think of it as a tablet. There are few options in "app optimizations" menu that allows you to switch between ghosting and page refresh speed.
I'm not sure if you can root it / if the bootloader is unlocked.
I'm using it with different stylus - the one from boox max - it doesn't have that magnetic lock, but it's larger and it feels like stylus tip has lower friction on the display.
In my case, ultimately, paranoia has won. :)
How much do you really trust discord? Or games on steam, or slack, or zoom client?
Flatpak does provide you, out of the box, with a sandbox for whole discord app. Sandbox is built on standard linux stuff like bubblewrap / seccomp / namespaces. This should prevent discord from, for example, accessing anything other than ~/Downloads (rw), ~/Pictures (ro) and so on. Or seeing what other processess are running on my pc. Or snooping in my ~/.ssh.
Some stuff might not work out of box and will require reading app's README or wiki. I imagine stuff like "john is listening to song - artist" would require additional permission or configuration. File sharing could be complicated if, for example, discord could not access my screenshots directory. Webcam, voice and screen sharing work out of box but are protected by "portals" provided by (in my case) KDE.
Discord, for example, does not pollute my /usr or /home. It stays somewhere in /var/lib/flatpak/ and keeps my user files in ~/.var/app/$APPNAME. Steam, Slack, all other "big proprietary apps" also keep their stuff in ~/.var/app/$APPNAME. It's not really a choice for them; flatpak just mounts proper directories in proper places and it works really well.
You can use `nsenter --target $PID --pid --net --mount --ipc` and look around to what kind of access flatpak apps have to your system.
Sorry about preaching, I just like that bit of additional separation from stuff I don't really want to trust or care about.