TauZero @ TauZero @mander.xyz

Posts

7

Comments

297

Joined

2 yr. ago

I assume this “VPN Server” that they can see is the “entry node”, and not the “exit node” (i.e. my IP as seen by the world) - but never got a clear answer to that

Traditionally, the entry node and the exit node have been the same VPN server/ip. In that sense, your ISP does know the IP of your exit server, since they are the ones connecting you to it.

For example, your X ISP's logs could show "At 15:00, user #123 connects to IP 1.2.3.4, which lookup shows is assigned to "CheapVPNs Ltd". At 15:01 our email server received 1,000,000 emails from IP 1.2.3.4 all angrily complaining about how "X ISP sucks". Correlation implies user #123 is responsible for the mail bomb attack against our servers."

At the moment, Mullvad specifically does use different entry and exit IPs, but they are all still located in the same datacenter and subnet. That is, you could be connecting to a Mullvad VPN server 1.2.3.4, 1.2.3.5, or 1.2.3.6 in London, and they all exit out through 1.2.3.1 in London. This is just something Mullvad does. Other VPN services may not do it and Mullvad hasn't done it in the past. Someone analyzing ISP logs could correlate these IPs if they really wanted to.

Mullvad also offers "multihop", but the way they have it implemented currently (changing the destination port number), an ISP could still deduce your exit IP if they bother looking up records of Mullvad network structure (which are publicly available), since they know the IP number and the port number of your entrance node.

The only way to hide your VPN exit IP from your ISP currently is to use multiple VPN services and nest them inside each other (or use one service and nest it inside itself using the "multiple devices" perk). Then only a state-level actor could hope to correlate your traffic by monitoring the ingress/outflow of multiple IPs simultaneously.

Piped/invidious work by scrapping the video chunks directly from google and proxying them through volunteer servers. They will stop working as soon as google gets around to locking down the APIs that they are abusing, or blocks their server IPs.

Central Park is not New York's largest park. It's the 5th.

There is a mathematical algorithm that proves this works in all cases. However this rule is not actually all that impressive as it appears at first glance! The number of operations (comparisons/subtractions/multiplications) you need to do is equivalent to just long-dividing the number by 7.

Consider: each operation of the rule removes one digit from the end. But you could just as easily apply the rule like "If the first digit is >=7, subtract 7 from it. Else, subtract the biggest multiple of 7 that will fit from the first two digits." To skip multiplying, you can use the following jump table: if the first digit is 6, subtract 54 from the first 2 digits, if 5 subtract 49, if 4: 35, if 3: 28, if 2: 14, if 1: 07. That will also remove one digit from the front! But now you are just doing long division.

Found this paper from 2019 with open access, where they do double slit electron diffraction and then slide a shutter in to close the second slit.

They talk about how it was never actually possible to do this before, because it requires very fine "electron optics" and manufacturing of components, like slits and shutters, with nanometer precision. So while the thought experiment with electrons itself was proposed by Feynman in 1963 (which is probably what inspired the monkey meme and the like), it was not actually realized until 2019. I'm also now guessing that the electron quantum eraser paper from 2014 doesn't use a double slit but some other electronic quantum circuit that is easier to work with.

The two-stripe photo to match the monkey meme, with electrons and measuring which-way information, probably doesn't exist yet. So that's why!

Yes, double slit interference happens with both photons and electrons, and even with C60 buckyballs and organic fluorescent dye molecules (https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1867)! This post is more so about the quantum eraser, as a counterpoint to the 12 posts about it that @kromem wrote in the other thread. The first experimental quantum eraser paper from 2001 uses photons, so that's the figures I used here. There might be newer papers that use electrons, like this one https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248459 from 2014, but I don't have access to it. I presume detecting the electron there using induced current or whatever would disturb its wavefunction to the same severity as using the polarizer filter does here.

I think it's precisely because there is no governing body for English and all the rules are colloquial, developed through usage, that people do get grumpy! They are the only ones who can create and enforce the rules! Each English speaker feels personally responsible and compelled to correct use they perceive is in violation of the rules the way they want them to be. If they don't do it right then and there, no one else can.

This is like that Key and Peele sketch where they rob the bank by working in there for 20 years.

In this experiment, yes. There could be other experiments with electrons instead of light, maybe where you toggle on some kind of magnet to measure which slit an electron goes through, but the measurement itself would still disturb the electrons in a manner where you shouldn't be surprised when the interference pattern disappears.

I mean, quantum mechanics is still definitely different from classical physics. There are things like the quantum bomb tester, and the Bell inequality violation is still totally real. But the way quantum mechanics has been presented to me in popular science has totally fucked me up. It was not until college quantum physics classes that it all turned out to be actually quite straightforward. And every each time after that when I go back to a research paper underlying some popular science presentation I've seen in the past, it turns out there was some giant 3d glasses just off-screen that the presenter somehow "forgot" to mention, and awareness of whose presence totally removes the "fuck"-factor.

Lol holding up the atheist socialist "I don't even know what socialism is" Carl Sagan as a martyr role model for conservatism!

Look at this fatcat using a water bottle! You can drink perfectly fine water from the tap. Don't even need a cup if you put your palms together.

That's why Google is pushing hard their Web Environment Integrity. It's DRM for the browser! They want the TPM chip in your computer to attest that the code running processing the video stream is authentic. Then you can't slice out the ads because you do not have physical access to the inside of TPM. With HDCP encryption on the HDMI video output, you gonna need to point a literal video camera at the physical screen to DVR the video and slice out the ads later.

They've been working hard for decades to lock down the video pipeline with TPM and HDCP and now WEI. They said "don't worry about it" and we let them. They are really close to snapping the trap shut!

Now please excuse me, my tongue is falling off with all the acronyms...

We are totally gonna get DVRs back, aren't we 🤣?

In this experiment, they didn't even bother measuring which slit each photon passes through. The 3D glasses don't measure or observe the photons, they merely polarize them (although they do block 50% of light). The detector D_S doesn't measure which-path information either. The researchers could have placed a circular polarizer in front of D_S, and when they get a hit they could have said with confidence "this photon came through the top slit!" but they didn't even bother doing it this time. The fact that the 3D glasses alter the light in a manner which makes the which-path information theoretically measurable (even if not actually measured), alone is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern.

Both this paper and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment paper (arXiv:quant-ph/9903047) only show a single blob, not the double stripe. If anyone has a paper that clearly shows a photo with the double stripes the way it's shown in the classic monkey meme, I'd like to add it to my collection!

Obviously if the slits are big and wide enough apart you will just get two spotlights, so that doesn't count. It wouldn't even demonstrate wave physics, let alone quantum. It has to be a paper where there is some switch you turn on or some filter you slide in place or whatever that makes the image on the physical screen toggle between two stripes and multiple.

If we cover one slit, it will look like figure 3, shifted to the side and at half intensity.

The paper doesn't use an actual screen, they only have the detector D_S that they move up and down to record the coincidences. I simulated what the monkey would see had there been a screen in place for the purpose of the meme. I copied down the datapoints from the graph and simulated 100,000 photons hitting the screen with the probabilities indicated by those points. My javascript pastie is available here: https://html.cafe/xcd2a5ed3?k=19f51bff26c65bcf253ee5257a5257d4f11570d9 Importantly, the monkey can never see images 4 and 5 on the physical screen - those can only be displayed on the computer. The monkey will only ever see image 3, which is the sum of 4 and 5.

Oh yeah, the app is probably even more convenient, especially with the pre-checkin, and the hygiene too, but there is no way I'm using that tracking bundle 😂. When I was born, nobody was counting how many burgers I was eating, and I'm not going to allow that to change. It's a shame too because they hide all the actually good deals in the app, the ones that make eating there actually affordable, so I find myself not even going to eat there anymore. I feel like a rube paying the full price. Probably better for me in the long run anyway.

I don't see why you are being so stubborn about this. If you don't like the numbers I gave you because "you can still go up to the counter and get a real person" it's an easy adjustment to make that tells the same story: before kiosks = 5 people working 75% at food and 25% at register, after kiosks = 4 people working 95% at food 5% at register. The conclusion is the same - your claim that automation does not eliminate positions is simply incorrect. I thought maybe you had some insider knowledge on mandatory staffing levels, but it seems you are just bad at math. Everyone else in these comments was arguing about jobs disappearing (not me! I only wanted to show off the cool cashbox) - it must have been really confusing to see all those people upset about something which you can't even comprehend as a problem.

You really don't see the difference between 5 people working, spending 80% of time making food and 20% floating at register, versus 4 people working 100% making food serving the same total number of customers now that registers have been nearly entirely replaced by kiosks and apps?

How can you be sure it doesn't eliminate positions? Is there some rule that states "every franchise must be staffed by exactly 8 people at all times"? Seems more likely to me the schedules will be adjusted until every worker is still occupied 100% of the time.

I'd personally prefer to focus on making food too, but there could be others who actually prefer manning the register.