What motivated you to write this program?

Your choice of “codebook”, is an immediate red flag and reeks of pop-crypto. There is a reason why this approach was abandoned some 100+ years ago, even properly implemented they have severe shortcomings.

Chatgpt just cribs from stack overflow, which in turn just cribs their answers from documentation. Once you figure that out, they both become surprisingly useless.

I just want tropical/desert textures. I know penguins like the cold, but people like variety.

“Making frequency analysis ineffective”

Oh boy, let’s hope nobody uses it for large plain texts. If x maps to k1,K2,… then one simply needs enough instances of x to reconstruct the key. It must at the very minimum need multiple symbols to map to the same strings to achieve ambiguity.

The cryptographic claims seem laughable.

Maybe to match against the passport photos. Some people travel with other similar-looking people’s IDs, and it can be missed by inspectors. So having an current photo of the traveler can be used in post-hoc investigations to determine if they did so.

deleted by creator

The bizarre thing is that they are only analysing something like 40 programs/library. You could reach the same conclusion clicking through their gitlab for a few minutes.

The translation rate is the actually interesting part.

My usual defeater goes like this:

It is logically possible to create a very clever mechanical device that for any finite input would output exactly the same behaviour a human could, yet we would clearly consider it to be unconscious clockwork. We have no reason to believe that electrical computers are any different.

“Game dev… Just force Rust into it”

What’s wrong with Rust for game dev? It seems similar to C++, and C# which are the dominant languages.

I can see arguments that the current projects have poor approaches, but not that the language itself is ill-suited.

I’ve used ffmpeg to compose a whole video from screen recordings. The big advantage is that it works well on weaker hardware that can’t run full blown video editors.

You’re correct in your assessment of the worst-case of distro maintainers, however many distro developers/maintainers do contribute to the upstream ( Debian policy explicitly encourages it, I only speak for Debian because that’s the only project I’ve worked in) and do vet and understand the software.

“It can’t be better”. Except distro maintainers can block it from being included if they find errors. As noted above they also often file pull requests against the upstream. This happens a fair amount actually.

I think you are completely missing the point. Packages distributed by Debian are less likely to be insecure because Debian policy requires reviewing all source code to make sure it meets interoperability and open-source standards.

Regardless of how frequently this is actually done, if it’s done at all is a point in favor of using Debian distribution. The fact that Debian has introduced errors themselves in a few cases is irrelevant, any developer can do that and crates.io is full of them with not even an attempt at additional review.

You need to balance whether or not the distributor is fixing or introducing more bugs, and in the case of Debian it seems to be overwhelmingly the former.

Your argument that crates.io is a known organization therefore we should trust the packages distributed is undermined by your acknowledgement that crates.io does not produce any code. Instead we are relying on the individual crate developers, who can be as anonymous as they want.

Debían developer is a specific position that you apply for. Anyone can be a maintainer. Well, I had to get approved but I don’t know the qualifications, I already had code in Debían vía GNOME.

I would look at stylometric analysis rather than just matching for certain phrases.

“just how many people are fucking terrible at their jobs”.

Apparently so. When I review mathematics software it’s clear that non-mathematicians have no clue what they are doing. Many of them are subtlely broken, they use either trivial algorithms or extremely inefficient implementations of sophisticated algorithms (e.g trial division tends to be the most efficient factorization algorithm because they can’t implement anything else efficiently or correctly).

The only difference I’ve noticed with the rise of LLM coding is that more exotic functions tend to be implemented, completely ignoring it’s applicability. e.g using the Riemann Zeta function to prove primality of an integer, even though this is both very inefficient and floating-point accuracy renders it useless for nearly all 64-bit integers.

bc can handle extended-precision integers, unlike bash which maps them to floats.

These laws aren’t to stop security professionals, it’s to stop common criminals that don’t have or bother with security beyond using third-party apps.

These might be of interest to software developers but it’s all just style nothing here actually effects the computation. The problem I encounter with LLMs is that they are incapable of doing anything but rehearsing the same algorithms you get off of blogs. I can’t even successfully force them to implement a novel algorithm they will simply deny that it is valid and revert back to citing their training data.

I don’t see LLMs actually furthering the field in any real way ( even if by accident, since they can’t actually perform deductive reasoning).

I think that there are certain attitudes that mainly occur to people outside the domain. Like how people endlessly shit on open-source projects, but few of those people are ever actually at the wheel of one.

What does Qt need entropy for?