Under quantum mechanics this can't explain non-even distributions. With no effects making high probability events more prevalent than others you can not (reliably) observe differentiated probabilities.
And once again, cardinalites appears. A thing whose possible variations correspond to infinite integers can't match that with have variations matching the real numbers. An infinite line won't correspond to an infinite hypercube in infinite dimensions. Gotta consider combinatorics from statistics too, as well as entropy. The number of permutations mapping to normal states simply has to far exceed the strange states for us to observe a normal universe.
Something dark matter like has to exist, because there's no other reasonable way to describe this behavior (shifted center of gravity matching presence of matter not influenced by friction)
And you can have a union even in a co-op (would mostly help if the majority / appointed leaders make decisions that break some rules, think enforcing safety rules and such)
We're getting into hierarchies of infinities here, look up cardinality. You can have infinities that can't map to every possibility of a higher infinity
Given the perfect grid pattern and a certain kind of coherence this kind of ML doesn't usually preserve it's much more likely somebody cut and paste the individual images into an ML based image generator to repaint them with English text
Stupid? Yes. They could have just taken the text alone into an LLM, or better yet regular translation program. But since when was the kind of people who blindly rely on ML smart?
You don't want FIDO2 security tokens for that, use an OpenPGP applet (works with some Yubikeys and with many programmable smartcards). Much more practical for authenticating a server.
BTW we have a lot of cryptography experts in www.reddit.com/r/crypto (yes I know, I'm trying to get the community moved, I've been moderating it for a decade and it's a slow process)
The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem isn't subjective, it's physics.
Your example isn't great because it's about misconceptions about the eye, not about physical limits. The physical limits for transparency are real and absolute, not subjective. The eye can perceive quick flashes of objects that takes less than a thousandth of a second. The reason we rarely go above 120 Hz for monitors (other than cost) is because differences in continous movement barely can be perceived so it's rarely worth it.
We know where the upper limits for perception are. The difference typically lies in the encoder / decoder or physical setup, not the information a good codec is able to embedd with that bitrate.
Malbolge