Considering the actual post here, plus just decent manners, if you like a book, and you’re able, it’s worth considering supporting the author of said book.
That being said, you should seriously consider going to your search engine of choice and searching for an archive by a person named Anna: Anna’s Archive if you will. You might find something helpful and interesting.
Depending on your threat model you’re almost certainly fine.
I got 2.7k on a post, but I just got lucky.
I can try to explain, but there are people who know much more about this stuff than I do, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable steps in to check my work.
What does ‘random’ or ‘noise’ mean? In this context, random means that any given bit of information is equally as likely to be a 1 or a 0. Noise means a collection of information that is either random or unimportant/non-useful.
So, you say “Compression saves on redundant data”. Well, if we think that through, and consider the definitions I’ve given above, we will reason that ‘random noise’ either doesn’t have redundant information (due to the randomness), or that much of the information is not useful (due to its characteristic as noise).
I think that’s what the person is describing. Does that help?
I’m not an Information Theory guy, but I am aware that, regardless of how clever one might hope to be, there is a theoretical limit on how compressed any given set of information could possibly be; and this is particularly true for the lossless compression demanded by this challenge.
Quote from the article:
The skepticism is well-founded, said Karl Martin, chief technology officer of data science company Integrate.ai. Martin’s PhD thesis at the University of Toronto focused on data compression and security.
Neuralink’s brainwave signals are compressible at ratios of around 2 to 1 and up to 7 to 1, he said in an email. But 200 to 1 “is far beyond what we expect to be the fundamental limit of possibility.”
It’s not just a fat or muscle thing. Those both contribute of course; fat insulates and muscle produces more heat. But the real player is the surface area to volume ratio.
A bigger person has a lot more volume than they have a bigger surface area, and since heat is lost through the skin this has a major impact.
I agree that, if the detection is accurate and correct, it could be produced through non-biological processes, but, on earth, the molecule in question is known to be produced solely by biological processes. So when you say “easily”, I must disagree.
This is very preliminary data, and we shouldn’t get overexcited about the possible implications of this discovery, but I think it’s fascinating.
I agree wholeheartedly. Maybe there’s an alternative funding model for authors, and artists generally, that could be imagined and built. I’d be surprised if there’s not already some great ideas floating out there; but if there are, I don’t know them.