Why do we always talk about freedom and liberty instead of true sovereignty? What about Sovereignware?

open source but actually having manageable code instead of 10 billion lines of bloat
for example knowing how your text system works instead of lol I use utf8 with 500 text rendering libraries and hardware acceleration throughout the stack

>>>/reddit/
ironically, none of the 500 non-libertarian governments remotely have any concept of sovereignty when it comes to software (or any technology really)

I like this.

How can we make it easier to follow a project's code's data flow, so that people's capacity to review it on their own, without having to trust other parties, is maximized, as in the libre ideal of software security?

IDE-s already offer tooltip-like visualizations of functions' parametres and call stacks and data structures.

The only other ideas I have:

* An execution framework/sandbox integrated into the OS that would sort runtime function calls by frequency of execution, so that parts of the project that are most/least often used can be identified and inspected as suits one?
* An authoritative centre of implementations of common algorithms, which would be referenced, reviewed, and commented by everyone? (This is just libraries, I suppose.)
* Or oppositely, some kind of distributed system in which individual code units (functions, files, modules) may be vouched for by people using personal keys or whatever?
* Some kind of identification of code which contains literals, offering that code for review before all others? Demanding that literals be shipped in complete separation from algorithms within a project's source?

Those ideas are extremely stupid. They aren't meant to stand on their own, but rather hope to inspire others.

For starters a single programming language instead of 20 so you can actually verify your PL. There isn't much benefit gained by using more than one PL since if you want to be secure you need to verify and fully understand every aspect of every PL you use.
I think static analysis is more important (to the point where this functionality isn't really useful).
Nope, this is a good idea. It's actually one of the core principals of a system I've been working on for years. Instead of a string-based shell like bash there's a "console" that manipulates units of code (functions, data). Code and data have authors which are just a standard property. You can download someone's code into your console and it will automatically resolve any functions/data it relies on, and you can browse the entire structure. The code has no privileges by default (uses capability-based security). playing with strings is insecure, especially on any unix/bash like system.

This sounds very cool. I have no idea how to integrate it with the collaborative libre software model in which every piece of code is worked on by multiple people, but still, I like its fine-grained control aspect a lot. Can privileges of individual code/data units depend on other metadata than just author?

I know nothing about kernel design, but I imagine that for one's entire OS to be able to be compiled by means of such controlled assembly of individually-audited pieces, the kernel would have to be as minimal as possible, so to, for instance, allow me to trust, say, GNU/FSF-signed code to access only particular hardware of my computer, code signed by a friend of mine to access certain data on my storage... The overhead involved in such a thing would have to be enormous.

Or would it? Perhaps such a setup could be essentially only the kernel, and the code piece fetcher/verifier/compiler, which would take the external code and wrap it one way or another. I suppose that as soon as the core system is reduced to, say, 50,000 lines or less, it becomes plausible to expect seriously security-minded people to read it as a whole.

Either way, good luck, and keep us posted.

Shill alert.

Attached: the absolute state of nigger cattle in CY3.png (642x305, 36.33K)

>minilap top

Why can't we intuitively imagine 4D space just as we can with 3D space? We don't see 3D space directly either, because our retinas are only 2D (hence each eye produces a 2D projection), but we can understand 3D space well nevertheless? Why not 4D? Why can't we imagine another direction that is perpendicular to all three directions in 3D space? Is it because of some inherent limitation in our brain, or is it just because we have been living in 3D space all life? Is the indirect "array with 4 indexes" method the only one we have available?

*correction: we can pretty much try to imagine it, but the point is we can't visualize it in any way at all, which is the main (and seemingly insurmountable) problem.

I suggest a perspective change. Stop seeing your imagination as inferior as to be unable to come up with a visual representation of a 4D object, rather consider reality as inferior as to only contain objects of mere three dimensions. It's not your fault that your understanding what a 4D object is, index-wise, is not spatially accommodated by reality. Your understanding is sufficient and adequate.

That said, I like representation of a fourth dimension as, for instance, a color- or timbre-like property.

The tesseract can be thought of as a projection of 4D in a 2D space. Just like how anything you see on a screen is technically 3D in a 2D space. It's an accurate projection. But its still a projection

And the reason we can't see it in reality is because a 4th dimension can't exist physically. Only mathematically and in theoretical topology

Attached: 1463654673652-2.jpg (1128x1504, 264.06K)

(Only, of course, with the understanding that said "color"/"timbre" doesn't propagate through space to reach its perceptor, but is, well, simply an inherent property of it.)

Mathematically speaking, a projection is never accurate because it always involves information loss. A line in 3D space projected onto a 2D surface intrinsically loses information about its original length, just like a shadow intrinsically loses information about its object's shape.

I of course meant accurate relative to projections in general

But somehow our brains can make up for the lost information, for as long as only ONE dimension is lost. Both our physical eyes and our "mind's eye" deliver images which are a 2D matrix, all how we can "see" 3D objects are really 2D projections, but still our brain can make perfect sense of 3D shapes and volumes (even if it's somewhat indirect in its nature - we don't notice it because we're so much used to it it's automatic).
For instance, we can directly see a 2D square, and we can visualize a direction perpendicular to the plane the square lies in, and we can also visualize an infinite amount of squares stacked upon each other along that direction for a length equal to the side of the square, thus forming a 3D cube. But can we repeat that going up a dimension? Can anyone here visualize a 3D cube, then visualize another direction that's perpendicular to the 3D space containing the cube, and then stack an infinite amount of cubes in that direction for a length of the cube's side so that a 4D "hypercube" is formed?

The same way Flatlandians live in a 2D world (anime jokes incoming), perceive it as a 1D world made of line segments, although the world itself has some sort of constant height, an omnipresent 3rd dimension to be perceptive. For a Flatlandian, in order to perceive a shape of a figure, he walks around it with constant angle velocity and examines how the length of a segment changes. Pretty damn similar to what "tesseract wacky 3D animated projection" is for us.

Seems reasonable - "recovering" a cube from a projection onto a plane is normal for us, but when the 3D object is compressed to only a single dimension, it seems impossible to infer it back. But then again it might be down to the fact that just a single dimension is extremely simple and limited, all that exists there are points and lines and nothing more (no "shapes", no angles, etc.).

not true: escher.jpg

Of course projection into a lower-dimension space can't be perfect by definition, and due to the lost information "collisions" can occur - much of Escher's art is famous for exploiting these "collisions" (specifically his late works such as "Belvedere", "Ascending and Descending", or "Waterfall", the latter two of which were actually inspired by Roger Penrose's impossible triangle).

Attached: penrose.png (272x549, 75.47K)

Not really, a Flatlandian examining a flat polygon contained in the 2D plane that is his "world" is akin to a person examining a physical 3D object. The fact that the Flatlandian needs to go around it amounts to the fact that lower-dimension space is much more limited (we can't really imagine to go any lower than that, all a 1D being could be is just a segment with two "eyes" at either end being able to see just a point and nothing more). Us trying to visualize an actual tesseract from its 2D projection would rather be a Flatlandian trying to visualize a 3D cube from its projection that's just a 1D line.

Which actually raises a somewhat interesting question - could such a 1D being perceive distance in any way? Let's assume the black line in pic related is a 1D world, the blue segment is a being inhabiting this world, the red dots at its ends are its "eyes", and the green dots are some objects - would (could?) what the being "sees" differ in any way between the upper and lower case (i.e. objects right next to the 1D observer vs objects a fair distance away)?

Attached: 1d_vision.png (560x222, 2.8K)

really makes you think

I would say no. If the "world" is really 1D, then the object (and the observer) are points, mathematical points. So what the observer perceives is 1 bit of information: either it sees a point or it doesn't.

Hmmmmm. Can a 3D object be rotated around an axis that doesn't exist within that 3D space (for instance is perpendicular to it, like with a circle rotated in a plane)?

a time-loop (a truly closed loop)

But that would imply that
1) the observer would see any object (as a point) from any arbitrary distance away (even if infinite?) just the same, and
2)even if the observer or the observed object moved, the results of such movement could not be perceived by the observer in any way
The above mean that in a 1D world the notion of distance could subjectively not exist at all to an observer, even though distances between objects in that world objectively DO exist (as evidenced when the 1D world is viewed from the perspective of a two- or more dimensional space). The 1D observer could only conclude "something is neighboring me on the left/right side", or "nothing at all exists to the left/right of me, all the way to infinity". Could the 1D observer (assuming that he somehow could have a functional brain and intelligence) develop the notion of distance?
Does all this have any implications for higher dimension spaces/observers? Could we be "blinded" to some fundamental properties of our 3D space due to the fact that we're also somewhat (if not as severely as a hypothetical 1D being) limited in our perception of it?

Can you say more about how that would be realized/how to visualize this?

I don't see it.

Rotating a 3D object so that the rotation axis is t (the time axis itself) would mean changing the object's position while keeping time still. But can there be movement if there's no time?

Couldn't there be a cutoff distance at which the object "disappears".

It could when it disappears.

Dunno, we need a more rigorous^W^W less schematic model if we want to postulate more specific things.

I always assumed this to be the case. And isn't the curvature of space an example of this?

A flat object in a plane can be rotated around a point, which is equivalent to rotating a solid object in 3D space around a line ("axis"). The line going through the point perpendicular to the plane in the first case would be equivalent to a *plane* going through the axis perpendicular to the 3D space.

Why would there be any arbitrary "cutoff distance" if we're speaking of a purely mathematical model? We can see stars from arbitrary distances away, the only limiting factors are physical in nature (absorption of light in the interstellar medium and things such as the speed of light and the cosmological constant).

Oh and of course there's also the inverse square law (which predicts that radiation detected from a given source will be only a quarter as intense with the distance doubled), but if the space is literally 1D so that the image of objects in the observer's "eye" is a literal point, then I don't think that there's any way to represent any intensity difference - it would be like a pixel which can either be on or off and nothing in between.

Ok, so let's assume the 1D being's "eye" can also "touch" objects if they are in direct contact. Now the being's "sensor" can provide information sufficient for not two but three different situations
This however only allows for a 1-bit notion of "distance" (adjacent/not adjacent), with still no way for the being to tell if it (or the object) moves away/towards it with the objectively-seen distance staying non-zero.

How would this even be supposed to work? That sounds a bit like "rotating an apple around an axis that is an orange" so to speak.

Is this curvature an inherent property of the 3D space itself, a property which objectively *exists* in that 3D space without having to refer to higher dimensions, but can only be *observed* from a higher-dimension space, much like "distance" is an inherent property of any two points in 1D space, but still apparently (as discussed above) cannot be observed by a 1D observer confined to that space?

Thanks. So the answer is obviously yes then. Because that plane cannot be in the 3D space, given that it is perpendicular. Now, which plane it is? Do we need to be 4D observers to tell?

I think you answered yourself, didn't you? We cannot see stars arbitrarily far away. There is a cutoff distance caused by space expansion. Is that arbitrary? I don't know. This is no longer a "purely mathematical mode", there's physics involved. That's what I meant with "more rigorous^W^W less schematic".

Is the curvature of a sheet of paper inherent?

changing the buzzword is similar to redesigning the logo
we still end up fighting on semantics, everyone is ripped off by establishment powers in the meantime, and the indians always win

let's go boys

But we most likely could if there was no interstellar absorption and the universe was either eternal or the speed of light was infinite.
This is something different. If you bend a piece of paper then it's bent only because it was bent within a higher dimension, thus it's a property of the paper treated as a 3D object, but not when considering it a pure 2D object.
Distances between points on a line do exist no matter if the line is straight or curved when submerged in a plane. Moreover, a distance between two points within the line doesn't need to be the same as their distance in a higher dimension space if that line is "curved" within that higher dimension.
Similarly, the "curvature" of our 3D space which is responsible for gravity supposedly occurs entirely within that 3D space, as opposed to the more intuitive notion of curvature meaning "not flat if submerged in a higher-dimension space".
Returning to the discussion of inherent traits of n-dimensional space which cannot be observed by an n-dimensional observer within that space, I was thinking of an example for 2D, and I think that it might be angles (a Flatlander can never see angles because in his 1D "vision" everything is in a single line). But then again the notion of angles, even though not visible directly to a 2D creature, would probably be much easier understood by it than distances to a 1D creature or 3D space "curvature" to us. Still, an example of an inherent trait of 2D objects which is not perceivable by an 2D observer would be very helpful in assessing whether the analogy between distances imperceivable by a 1D creature and gravity-related "curvature" of our 3D space is indeed justified.

True. I mixed 4D euclydean with 3+1D (minkowsi?).
I think this thread might be fatally cringy for /physics/ or whatever.

Such discussions belong in /sci/, but that place is pretty much dead with just a few posts per week in average so actual discussion there is virtually impossible
Minkowski

spacetime is a scam, it doesn't exist

Then what does?

Spic countries promoting free software ALWAYS make a point on "technological sovereignity" (soberania tecnologica as they call it), to not depend on technology and platforms controlled by an external entity and fall into a pitfall of dependence.

I apolagise for the bad thread.

Self-sage :(

Attached: catato.jpg (540x532, 27.94K)