Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:11:43PM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> We should probably imagine 10 year time frame, not 6 weeks :)

I think more on the scale of 100 years, but yeah. 10 would be wonderful.

> But even though it's difficult, without a core of belligerently
> principled and strongly persistent fellow souls, you'll be a one man
> band, and that's no fun :/

Well, I dunno. I play a little guitar. I think it'd be a blast to be able
able to rattle off some harmonica, and thump a pair of kick drums
simultaneously.

But I get your point.

> An interim step could perhaps be "direct democracy" - some variant on
> Swiss style democracy.

Indeed. I don't often use the word "anarchist" in most discussions with
people, unless the forum is such that I have good reason to believe
they'll understand the real meaning of it.

"Direct democracy" is an OK term. Most will appreciate it. Personally, I
dislike it, because I am not that much of a fan of democracy the way most
people think of it. i.e. Everyone is entitled to vote. I don't agree.

One needs a license to drive a car. One needs a license to own a firearm.
Rightly so. Exercising those rights can have real consequences for the
public, and it seems prudent to make sure people have the information they
need to be responsible.

If voting TRULY mattered, if it was POWERFUL, you'd NEED a license for it.
I feel this is a nuance most fail to grasp.

"Anti-authoritarianism" is another OK term. Except I don't like labeling
things "anti" .. you set up defining what you're AGAINST, rather than what
you're FOR. Sets the wrong tone, in my estimation.

It is, to me, very telling that we don't even have really appropriate
terminology.. that is how deeply ingrained the authoritarian alpha/beta
thing goes. And, as Chomsky would point out, if one lacks the language for
something, it becomes very difficult to think properly about it.

An old flame of mine likes to just drop the "anarcho" and call herself a
Syndicalist. When people ask, she describes the free association of people
into syndicates. She was fond of pointing out that it sounds bad-ass to
people to "join a syndicate" .. calling up "romantic images" of joining
outlaw crime syndicates, or such.

I'm rather sure that wouldn't scale the way we want either.

In certain contexts, all of these terms can be useful and effective.. but
the lack of a single banner or anthem that most of the "fringe" can unite
under is a real problem. And it isn't JUST a matter of terminology.

The scattered, fragmented voice of the Occupy movement speaks to that
problem.

So many people know .. no.. more importantly FEEL.. deeply, truly feel
that there is something wrong with our society. They can taste the
plastic.
The problem is, none of us can really KNOW what we want in its place,
because we've never tasted anything else, except maybe in fantasy, or
dreams.. perhaps a few fleeting few moments where one manages to escape
the world, just for a moment, and catches the scent. One woman dreams of
steak.. some older gent a bit of ice cream. The young kid wants a pizza.
And we quibble over which one we should have.. and in the meantime, we're
forced to subsist on the cafeteria slop.

Its baffling to me now, but I remember being an ideologue. But for the
life of me I can't remember what the fuck I was thinking.

Re: what is a traitor?

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 09/19/2016 08:46 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Some good points being raised, on sl1shd()t no less:
> 
> https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/09/18/2023216/assange-agrees-to-us-p
rison-if-obama-pardons-chelsea-manning
>
> 
> 
> What is a traitor?

It is a label indicating a prejudicial, emotional value judgment.  Bob
Wilson would probably have said it is a synonym for "a no good shit."

> When is it appropriate to label someone a traitor?

When you want idiots to endorse your intention of kidnapping,
torturing and/or murdering someone for political reasons.

> When is doing so, an attempt at manipulative propaganda?

Every time, as in every other case where a categorically derogatory
label is branded onto someone.

Extreme ignorance apparently excuses anything:  I have seen people
call Australian national Julian Assange a "traitor" because Wikileaks
published DNC and HRC e-mail dumps.

:o/



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX4JfCAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqnTAH/RSxqgHnmpLPYP1vt+Xd/qgZ
NdneVsYayySmgp6S5ljC3zOU8GcflIpo89l12lr/ZIuHqrtjvsgU19nIoYsqHHxL
PXypvaeI69u0LF58oSMUxr+dOJKqEnngnj3jB4Yh/MwHRhOkU0DuUbuLO14e8+Wq
hlzwUN1Sf2uyOzsNO1v0kkPJW8ULPBvqfZPF2YrE30ExQ8MF+NKEJhGnomUHZQun
AX3VSrbGlt1KW0HPBwLfSjRHclwfHBfCPPsC4Hv4NYGl2MaHpMcjhyWT5bW5zECZ
m1CTaVHkkbiOsiEMw3OUt8SdyWV/hrbv0VxlYgItrS4M/yxhnoCWcrLJd4YOP3Q=
=GZDp
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

what is a traitor?

[Zenaan Harkness]

Some good points being raised, on sl1shd()t no less:

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/09/18/2023216/assange-agrees-to-us-prison-if-obama-pardons-chelsea-manning


What is a traitor?

When is it appropriate to label someone a traitor?

When is doing so, an attempt at manipulative propaganda?

This reply, amongst others, is on point:
> 1. Loyalty to country / oath = precisely not ignoring illegal actions.
> 
> 2. Doesn't really matter what her initial motivation was - she could
> have done it because she was a dirty racist who didn't like the
> President's color, for all I care.
> 
> 2. Give evidence that she did it "deliberately, willfully to hurt
> [her] nation" please.
> 
> She didn't seriously injure her country or try to destabilise it
> or encourage war against it. She did not cooperate with a foreign
> nation. She was acquitted of "aiding the enemy". To stick the
> "traitor" label on her is ridiculous.
> 
> (Also, to stubbornly stick with "him" suggests you're not really
> interested in facts and are emtionally clouded.)

Re: Xorcist = Coderman

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 07:09:43PM -0400, rooty wrote:
> Empty Message

:D

Very appropriate addy to go with that too.

Notwithstanding a previous nom/nim/name/id (inner demon), what is
important is our shared common delusions, and how we might possibly
shift towards a shared future commonly deluded to be "better" than
what we live in today.

If I were a USAian, you -know- which state I'd be migrating to... ;0

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:18:03PM -0300, juan wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:43:08 -
> xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> > >   I'm not really following. No doubt we can find more than a
> > > few instances of people acting like animals, but what of it?
> > >
> > >   It's also true that people can act in rational ways, and
> > >   that's what supposedly make them human.
> > 
> > Agreed, with the proviso that quite often people rationalize, rather
> > than act rationally. They rationalize away animal instincts.
> 
>   I don't know what you mean by 'rationalize' - Isn't that
>   psychobabble? 
> 
>   Also, there are animal behaviours that don't entail aggresion
>   towards other animals, so even "acting like an animal" isn't
>   necessarily a bad thing.
> 
>   Bottom line again, your 'realistic' view that SOME humans do
>   what they do because of their animal nature is bullshit. 

I think you missed the agreement - I'm reading you both saying almost
the same thing on this point.

Juan, I agree with your wording, but it's not what I read xorcist say.

I'm also very strongly agreeing with the principle "we should strive for
something higher than our 'base instincts'", as well as "'rationalizing'
evil behaviour as merely 'animalistic' tendency is a self fulfillment of
propagation of that which we say is evil.

xorcist said what some people do; you say they shouldn't do that, except
for those "animalistic" behaviours which are not evil (of course).

Looks to me like we're all on the same page here...


>   Right. You are generalizing and that's why your argument fails.

I am quite guilty of tearing down generalisations and missing if there
was something useful, whether in frustration or whatever.


> > about Joe six pack, basically.
> 
>   Joe six pack doesn't necessarily join the military to murder
>   brown children for fun. 

Doesn't necessarily, but often enough 'does' (effectively does). Sad but
true. What Joe six pack ought do is say "no, I conscientiously object,
and if that's what it comes to, I'll take solitary for X years, rather
than go and shoot those brown children" - there are just so many
personal stories over the web these days of ex grunts who've become
"peace activists" (perhaps to purge their conscience?) but that does
little to stop the killing machine - saying no -before- shooting folk in
other countries is what is needed to stop the killing.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:11:43PM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> >> You know, the main problem with anarchism is that there are no doctors
> >> and engineers to speak of.
> 
> > Guaranteed we could find at least a handful of "doctors and lawyers",
> > who subscribe to at least some aspects of political anarchy!
> 
> Yes, of course. But a handful is not nearly enough,

We should probably imagine 10 year time frame, not 6 weeks :)

Relationships, real relationships. One person at a time. Only option.


> and I find that pragmatic professional types who aren't political
> ideologues don't want to waste time with a group composed of such
> people,

There are no rules. This also means I am not obliged to keep discordant
disagreeable folks in my house at my think tank meetings, or invite them
back.

I don't have time to be steamrolled by those who denounce literally
everything, including "use of the word 'freedom' is oppressive because
that means I'm agreeing with everything you might say in the future" (I
kid you not, some folks are -really- messed up - I can't work with
people so fragile of mind and belligerent of intention (belligerent in
that they will pick any 'hot' word and say it cannot be used, in order
to denounce or 'control' the entire group - not on my watch!)).


> which as I say, in my experience tend to be the type that
> crowd under the banner of anarchy.

Mums and dads, engineers, yes. Those without too much of a personal axe
to grind.

However, you need your core, and your core must have persistence of
conviction.

It's hard to find persistence of conviction except in those who are also
keenly aware of evils, and distinctly angry in response (oh no, not me
of course - it's everyone -else- that suffers this neurosis ;)

But even though it's difficult, without a core of belligerently
principled and strongly persistent fellow souls, you'll be a one man
band, and that's no fun :/


> > I do wish there were an easier silver bullet where I could say to you
> > "yeah, good on ya mate! go live your own life and avoid all politics
> > it's all doomed anyway, so I pat your back for giving up mate!"
> 
> Well, I will say that I've all but given up on "anarchy." Or, rather, I've
> come around, perhaps, more to Thoreau's view: we're not ready for it.

An interim step could perhaps be "direct democracy" - some variant on
Swiss style democracy.

I read this early in the year from someone's "to read" link, that direct
democracy is at least for some folk, an "aka" of anarchy.

And it sounds so much more palatable - most are neither aware nor
willing to be aware of the nuance that anarchy means something other
than chaos for example.

Xorcist = Coderman

[rooty]

Empty Message

Re: SHA-3 and GOST-R/Stribok

[xorcist]

>
> By the way, it should be called "Streebog"", "Stribog".

Thank you for the correction. Reckon thats going to make searching for
info a might easier.

For some reason I have it with a 'k' in my notes.

Anyhow, thats again.

Re: Permutations to scalars and back again.

[Peter Fairbrother]

On 19/09/16 02:45, James A. Donald wrote:

On 9/12/2016 8:01 PM, Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 07:50:50PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

To restate the problem:  Find a mapping between integers and injective
functions from N to X up to a permutation of N.

In this case, find a mapping between integers and an injective functions
from 18 to 36.


Sage (open source, sagemath.org) can do at least parts of what you
are asking.
Not sure I get the question about injective function, but AFAICT
treating the permutation as nonnegative integer in binary will do.

Example sage session:

sage: l=[0]*2+[1]*2
sage: pe=Permutations(l)
sage: pe.cardinality()
6
sage: pe[0]
[0, 0, 1, 1]
sage: for p in pe:  print p
[0, 0, 1, 1]
#...more





Found the the solution.

Combinatorial number system.

Suppose we have k cards, any one of which can be white or red, but which
are otherwise indistinguishable and interchangeable.

Combinatorial number system gives us a one to one mapping between
integers, and all possible subsets of an n element set.

Now I want a mapping between integers and all possible m element subsets
of an n element set, but for m approximating n/2 the mapping is dense
enough to be useful.


The mapping I described is a fully dense 1:1 bijective mapping between 
the 9075135300 possible ordered combinations of 18 zeros and 18 ones and 
the integers 0-9075135299.



If you didn't understand it, please ask, off- or on-list.

-- Peter F

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:43:08 -
>   Do you think that slaves wanted to be slaves? And do you think
>   that the people who enslaved them were not responsible for the
>   enslavement? THAT is free wiil at work.
>
>   "There are limits free will" is just a vague, irrelevant
>   comment.

Whatever. This is just hard-ass, inflexible thinking. The point of the
matter is that right and wrong are largely a matter of interpretation
through cultural norms.

It was socially reinforced to be racist back then. It was socially
reinforced to not be homosexual. Hence, it was MORE DIFFICULT to be
racially egalitarian, or homosexual. This, it would seem to me, shows that
FREE WILL has limits. Those people were LESS FREE to be homosexual, or
racially egalitarian.

Could they still do so? Yes, at a cost. Fuck, for that matter, the slave
could refuse to do his work and not BE a slave too. There would be a cost:
beatings, or death. But he has the CHOICE, right? THAT is your free will?

Sure, from a hard-assed use of the terminology "free will" and an
inflexible way of looking at it, that can be claimed.

But for christ's sake you KNOW WHAT I MEAN when I say the slave doesn't
have free will. There is a COST to exercising it. It isn't fucking FREE.

Same for going against social conventions.

It's fucking grade school elementary.

>   I am not. But I can change the animal anyway. Cats don't have
>   'leaders'. And my remark would be as relevant, or even more
>   relevant than your comments about humans being 'primates'

Domesticated cats, no. But anyone with a cat will tell you they are LESS
SOCIAL pets than dogs.

That is my whole point.

>   So you say. So what. Bottom line is, comparing humans to other
>   animals doesn't prove anything.

How very Biblical of you.

There is an idea in our culture, that it is man's right to use the planet,
and animals any way we see fit. Because we can, basically. It's "might
makes right." It's Yahweh's commandment to "hold dominion over the earth"
where he set man apart from animals.

It's a primitive notion, really.

Are you mention humans are animals. Now, its perfectly normal in our
science to compare lions to tigers. Or horses to zebras. We're content to
abstract from their behaviors, and find similarities and guiding
principles for the activity of different genus'.

Except when it comes to humans, and our primate relatives. It's arrogance.

>   OK. So in **authoritarian cultures**, some grown-ups pay
>   attention to 'leaders'. There are also grown-ups who believe
>   incredibly stupid and evil nonsense they call 'religion' -
>   especially rhe jew-kkkristian sort. Do you think the bible
>   comes from the DNA? But it just so happens that children don't
>   believe that shit 'naturally'. They have to be brainwashed and
>   coerced into believing it.

Lets be precise: in authoritarian cultures MOST adults will pay attention
to the leaders. The ones that don't will get a label and will suffer some
level of ostracism or social sanctions.

Does religious nonsense come from DNA? No, not as such. But considering
that EVERY human culture has developed some type of religious mythology,
I'd say that its in our bones, so to speak. It's not JUST a matter of
coercion and control, either. For example, shamanistic religions where
there is no priestly initiation, or transfer of authority, etc. Humans
seem to have a great need for myth.

But lets take it a step further. What is a "non-authoritarian" culture?
Hippies? Punks? Bohemians and beat-nicks? Sure. But even they have
leaders. They have ALPHAS that get a measure of deference and respect. The
key difference, and why we don't consider them authoritarian, is that
there is less expectation to conform and do as one is told. But, for
example, you're still going to get treated oddly by most members of these
sub-groups if your fashion sense is to wear a three-piece button up suit.

But what is important to realize is that the alpha/beta dynamic exists in
*virtually* all human social interaction. It *PLAYS* to a deep need, among
most primates, to HAVE that dynamic.

There are always anomalies. You may be one of them. I certainly am. As a
child, I was socially ostracized for being friendly and talkative with
mentally handicapped kids. They were my "lessers" and there was an
expectation that I'd treat them as such.. not to be mean to them, but to
not include them in "the circle."

I saw many kids grow up and learn those types of "lessons." The vast
majority folded to social pressure.

I never cared about it. Still don't.

But I recognize that for many people, they deeply care about what others
think of them.

>> Agreed, with the proviso that quite often people rationalize, rather
>> than act rationally. They rationalize away animal instincts.
>
>   I don't know what you mean by 'rationalize' - Isn't that
>   psychobabble?

Not at all. Let me give you an all-to-common example. 

Re: SHA-3 and GOST-R/Stribok

[Sergey Matveev]

*** xorc...@sigaint.org  [2016-09-19 23:25]:
>Anyone know of some good reference material comparing and contrasting
>these hash functions?

As Wikipedia says ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streebog ),
Streebog uses Merkle-Damgård construction and mathematically is more
closed to SHA1/SHA2 and similar hash functions. It can be called rather
"classic" construction, but much more effective and simple that previous
GOST R 34.11-94 hash function standard.

So many things related to those classic SHA1/2-like functions are
appliable to GOST R 34.11-2012 too.

By the way, it should be called "Streebog"", "Stribog".

-- 
Happy hacking

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[juan]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:21:23 +1000
Zenaan Harkness  wrote:


> 
> Eben Moglen should stand in politics. Linus Torvalds should stand in
> the same party - wouldn't that be fun :)


Torvalds? Torvalds should either learn the ABC of politics or
stick to coding. And same thing for that fucking asshole
stallman.

http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html

Has torvalds published any more thoughts on his beloved
psycho-murderer obomba? 

I think torvald's views should put to rest the idea of good
politicians (apart from dead politiians), good political
parties and similar nonsense. 



 

Re: on communication - [z...@freedbms.net: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)]

[Cecilia Tanaka]

On Sep 19, 2016 2:58 PM, "Sean Lynch"  wrote:
>
> Are you seriously bragging to this list about how you engage in coder
dick-size comparisons?

Well, in another thread  (Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF),  he wrote
"... those with small dick syndrome (or small ovary syndrome), aka bullies."

Probably, Zen will say now that you have a small dick and code very bad,
because are "bullying him".  My "small ovary" doesn't care about his
opinion, haha!!  ;)

SHA-3 and GOST-R/Stribok

[xorcist]

Anyone know of some good reference material comparing and contrasting
these hash functions?

>From what I know of the mathematics, they are quite unrelated, and it
should be very difficult to make inferences about inputs by looking at
their comparative outputs, but I'd love to see some work in this regard,
if there is any out there.

I have an application where it would be best to use two hash functions,
but I'd like to make sure there is some "orthogonality" there.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> Does not matter if your seats of power are in a global hegemonic empire,
> or merely the 12 seats on your local council, or some other system where
> a "benevolent dictator is supposed to wield ulatimte authority" - by
> "being too smart to get involved in politics", as you correctly point
> out,

Yes, I agree with you that it would be better for all if a different lot
of people got involved in politics, whether at a local or global level,
etc.

The trouble is that it is difficult to convince people to act against
their own immediate interests.

For example, I happen to know an exceptionally smart woman that I think
would be great in politics. But she'd get decimated in an election because
of her lifestyle choices. She has a long-term, polygamous relationship and
open relations with other people.

There is an additional layer of complexity here: what individualist
anarchist types view as "moral", "acceptable", and "normal" is
fundamentally different than the population at large. And unfortunately,
these are the types of things that the population focuses on; largely
because they are unable to comprehend matters of the issues.

> Well, you seem to get it, why have you not created a political party
> "Anarchy FTW" or some such?

I have, actually, at different times in life. The difficulty that I've run
into is two fold.

First, there has been a difficulty in uniting left-and-right oriented
anarchists. That is "solvable" by simply focusing on one perspective and
getting a group behind that. I don't much care, personally, if we're
speaking about anarcho-capitalism, or anarcho-syndicalism, or whatever.
>From my perspective, neither have be implemented at a large scale, and
both seem to have advantages over the current failing system, so I'm happy
to give either a chance. Others are more dogmatically ideological about
it, in my experience.

But the bigger issue has been disruptive individuals. Whether they are
just hard-line ideologues, or agent provocateurs, I won't bother to
speculate. But the problem is that there is always a few individuals who
manage to dominate the conversation, and derail practical things for some
type of "purity." And to argue against them is to get labeled a sell-out,
fascist sympathizer, or other nonsense.

I was acquainted with an 'anarchist' group that ended up voting for George
Bush Jr, the second time around on the "principle" that he is the worst
choice, and that it would hasten the downfall of the State. I've been
acquainted with others that advocate not voting at all.

> How is it that, regardless of political philosophy underlying whatever
> political system currently prevails in the shared common delusion, that
> we can justify NOT being involved?

There are all manner of rational justifications for not running for
office. Not wanting your personal life torn apart, and the people close to
you harassed and hurt is damn good justification.

There are less rational reasons to not vote.. even if you pencil in "no
one" or "putin" or whatever nonsense, and take the time to encourage other
members of the electorate to think differently about their duty while on
line.

>
>> You know, the main problem with anarchism is that there are no doctors
>> and engineers to speak of.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
>
> And I encourage you, with a warm heart, to advise yourself to caution
> yourself in the words you use, in the genericisms you proudly flaunt as
> they they're God's given truth to the current reality.

I believe if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I was careful to
use "to speak of" and "mostly" as needed. Perhaps I could have couched it
more.

> Guaranteed we could find at least a handful of "doctors and lawyers",
> who subscribe to at least some aspects of political anarchy!

Yes, of course. But a handful is not nearly enough, and I find that
pragmatic professional types who aren't political ideologues don't want to
waste time with a group composed of such people, which as I say, in my
experience tend to be the type that crowd under the banner of anarchy.


>
> I do wish there were an easier silver bullet where I could say to you
> "yeah, good on ya mate! go live your own life and avoid all politics
> it's all doomed anyway, so I pat your back for giving up mate!"

Well, I will say that I've all but given up on "anarchy." Or, rather, I've
come around, perhaps, more to Thoreau's view: we're not ready for it.

Today, I tend to put more focus on practical things, and rather avoid the
ideology. What can be done to keep the internet as free as possible? What
can be done to combat state surveillance? What can be done to see firearms
rights preserved as best as possible? If I have to deal with National
party folks, or Liberal party, or Greens, or whoever, thats fine.

> ... generally, learn to be a great human, a fantastic team player, a
> subtle and ego free behind the scenes influencer (if possible, I know
> from extended personal experience that ego is a shit of a thing to try

Re: on communication - [z...@freedbms.net: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)]

[Sean Lynch]

Are you seriously bragging to this list about how you engage in coder
dick-size comparisons? I'm guessing you think you won the one you're
sharing, or you wouldn't be sharing it. But then, we already knew social
skills weren't your strong suit.

Guess it's a nice break from the usual Russian propaganda and Holocaust
denial, at least.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

> There are times when subtlety is useful, but at other times, you just
> have to be blunt.
>
> Below is a reminder to some kind folks of this simple fact.
>
> For the full conversation, see here:
>
> "fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary
> file) #1238"
> https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/1238
>
>
>
>
> - Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness  -
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:00:23 +1000
> From: Zenaan Harkness 
> To: geany/geany  211dad5da016c7dbfe92cf000113f78b7692a169ce0a976...@reply.github.com>
> Subject: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word
> CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:18:14AM -0700, elextr wrote:
> > > Should be easy, and should also be how the program is implemented.
> >
> > and how do you keep all this updated and in sync with changes to the
> > buffer as its edited?
>
> The layered model - the bottom layer is the text/ raw utf8 stream.
>
> The next layers are the indexing layers for various purposes as and when
> needed.
>
> An index is not just an array of "locations" of course since when the
> underlying text stream is inserted into or deleted from (in terms of
> bytes, not graphemes), then of course the corresponding index in the
> upper layer also needs to be updated.
>
> Now because when an index point gets updated it is that all subsequent
> index points also need to be updated, a tree structure for the indexes
> is required.
>
> And because the underlying layer can change, even it needs to be
> represented by a tree structure (various blocks of text are the leaves
> of the tree).
>
> This is basic Comp Sci - thus the "easy" bit. The text editor data
> structure is really the simplest useful program, and the data structures
> needed to handle "large" (anything other than trivial sized) text files,
> are well understood, well studied, and highly optimized.
>
>
> > > At least, that's how a superior programmer would implement it ;)
> >
> > Most of the features you describe are handled by the Scintilla editing
> > component which is a separate project at www.scintilla.org and I am
> > sure they would be delighted to hear how a "superior" programmer would
> > re-implement their library. :)
>
> Ah ok. An external dependency.
>
> Well :)
>
> Guess who needs to advise them their data structures are inferior then
> hey? :D
>
> Enjoy the ride, and to ease your communications with your upstream
> dependency, I suggest being exceptionally blunt with your "inferior
> structures" communications, and to top it off, don't stop at the code
> but go on to point large accusatory fingers at the personal life choices
> of the programmers involved.
>
> That should speed up the re-implementation.
>
> - End forwarded message -
>

on communication - [z...@freedbms.net: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)]

[Zenaan Harkness]

There are times when subtlety is useful, but at other times, you just
have to be blunt.

Below is a reminder to some kind folks of this simple fact.

For the full conversation, see here:

"fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary
file) #1238"
https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/1238




- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness  -
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:00:23 +1000
From: Zenaan Harkness 
To: geany/geany 

Subject: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word 
CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:18:14AM -0700, elextr wrote:
> > Should be easy, and should also be how the program is implemented.
> 
> and how do you keep all this updated and in sync with changes to the
> buffer as its edited?

The layered model - the bottom layer is the text/ raw utf8 stream.

The next layers are the indexing layers for various purposes as and when
needed.

An index is not just an array of "locations" of course since when the
underlying text stream is inserted into or deleted from (in terms of
bytes, not graphemes), then of course the corresponding index in the
upper layer also needs to be updated.

Now because when an index point gets updated it is that all subsequent
index points also need to be updated, a tree structure for the indexes
is required.

And because the underlying layer can change, even it needs to be
represented by a tree structure (various blocks of text are the leaves
of the tree).

This is basic Comp Sci - thus the "easy" bit. The text editor data
structure is really the simplest useful program, and the data structures
needed to handle "large" (anything other than trivial sized) text files,
are well understood, well studied, and highly optimized.


> > At least, that's how a superior programmer would implement it ;)
> 
> Most of the features you describe are handled by the Scintilla editing
> component which is a separate project at www.scintilla.org and I am
> sure they would be delighted to hear how a "superior" programmer would
> re-implement their library. :)

Ah ok. An external dependency.

Well :)

Guess who needs to advise them their data structures are inferior then
hey? :D

Enjoy the ride, and to ease your communications with your upstream
dependency, I suggest being exceptionally blunt with your "inferior
structures" communications, and to top it off, don't stop at the code
but go on to point large accusatory fingers at the personal life choices
of the programmers involved.

That should speed up the re-implementation.

- End forwarded message -