|
"So long, and thanks for all the fish" ?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The message consists of two words and some punctuation...
"Not again." 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
"I wonder if it'll be friends with me?"
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
There are various ways to solve this of course, but one way could be:
The lowest non-zero shift count is 3, so the top 3 bits are the original bits. The next 3 bits from the top have the top bits XORed into them, and they can be restored by again XORing with the top bits:
x ^= x >> 3;
Now the top 6 bits are decoded, but the rest of the bits are "more tangled up". Proceeding that way does keep making progress because it always makes the decoded part at least 1 bit longer, but as it does so it makes the bottom bits more and more messed up. That's tricky to keep track of just in my mind, so what I would do is represent the current state of "how tangled up" the message is an an ulong (m) that has bit k set iff x is still XORed with the original message shifted right by k. So m = 1 | (1UL << 3) | (1UL << 13) | (1UL << 47) at the start, and when restoring that first group of bits it changes in a similar way: m ^= m << 3;.
The next offset can be found by looking in m for the rightmost set bit apart from the least significant bit, so offset = countTrailingZeros(m & ~1UL). The second offset is 6, then 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, etc.
As a variant, a similar thing can be done but xoring x with shifted versions of the original encoded message instead of the current x, which would be paired with xoring m with shifted versions of the original m instead of the current m. Then the offset sequence is 3, 6, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21...
Or if you immediately see what's going on, you can relate this problem to finding the carryless multiplicative inverse modulo 264, but you didn't need that just to solve the puzzle.
|
|
|
|
|
At least, that is what your message tells backward to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Well,
Looks like back in 2008 someone on Wikipedia decided that the Base32 content encoding and the mathematical Base-32 duotrigesimal radix are the same thing.
According to the talk page the duotrigesimal page was deleted and merged with Base32 content encoding page. A single user on June 2008 argued against it.
The internet is broken.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
The internet has broken everything
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote: The internet has broken everything
Do you have a list of things negatively impacted by the internet?
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have a list of things where it's NOT?
We are in an election cycle in Australia. Pretty much all of politics has been destroyed by the internet
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote: We are in an election cycle in Australia. Pretty much all of politics has been destroyed by the internet
I assume you are referring to the 'fake news' problem. It's not just affecting politics... it's also having an effect on scientific papers because it's full of garbage and P-value manipulations.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly think the internet could be great, if humans were not so stupid. Stuff like anti vax, climate change denial, everyone has abandoned believing experts for believing their facebook friends
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote: I honestly think the internet could be great, if humans were not so stupid.
I'm getting MIGA hats printed! Not to be confused with Migas[^]. It's breakfast and the Tex-Mex variety sounds really good right about now, with chorizo please, that or Chilaquiles[^].
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote: Pretty much all of politics has been destroyed
You say so as if it is a bad thing.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
So long as the stupid things people believe become policy because they are vote winners, it affects us all
|
|
|
|
|
Is that new? Newspapers were never politically aligned liars until The Internet? Universal vote did not exist until The Internet? Cosnpiracy nuts, doomsday preachers and "alternative medicine" enthusiasts did not exist before The Internet?
The Internet came in usage in Italy quite late, in the mid-2000. We had the same share of idiots and idiotic laws all the same.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Newspapers are worse because they are competing with fake news sites and fighting for survival. My dad used to show me audio tapes of conspiracy theories. They had limited reach and were obviously dodgy. That's no longer true.
Alternative medicine existed all along. I was more talking about conspiracy theories like anti vax, than homoepathy, although it's true that 'natural medicine' also recruits on the web
|
|
|
|
|
Politicians have been lying and media has been spreading "fake news" long before the internet, the only difference is the number of people they reach.
At least the internet enables "regular folk" to argue against it.
If the internet has destroyed anything, it's social interaction.
Social media is anything but social and now, neither are we (just the way I like it  ).
|
|
|
|
|
Keeping people at arms' lenght has never been easier!
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: At least the internet enables "regular folk" to argue against it.
It doesn't though. I reported tons of people gloating over Christchurch, FB did nothing. I got back to back 30 days for calling someone a name for saying Muslim kids deserve to die and then for saying something true in a debating group. I posted a question asking FB why they don't delete actual hate, they deleted my question and blocked me from posting more
|
|
|
|
|
But tons of people still got their say, you just didn't agree 
|
|
|
|
|
Sure. So long as we agree that people who want to kill Muslims have the right to be protected and people who don't, deserve censorship.
I don't think FB has an agenda past money. I think they would prefer that some people are hateful, but that we don't cross paths, and everyone uses FB a lot
|
|
|
|
|
FB != internet, we're discussing it here, aren't we?
Back in the day people wanted to kill witches[^] and if you said otherwise you'd be burned at the stake as well.
Muslims are the new witches I guess, and aside from some laws we haven't really advanced from the killing either.
At least there are some pro-Muslim websites (and FB pages) as well, which weren't available for witches (although witches now have both too!).
Speaking of witchery, the Temple of Satan was recently acknowledged as an actual church by the US government[^].
I'm pretty sure the internet played no small part in it.
And of course sending them death threats over "worshipping Satan" (which they don't) is also made easy by the internet.
Bothersome thing, this freedom of speech 
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, for most people today, social media sites are the internet
The template of Satan is awesome!! There's a film, I want to see it
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Muslims are the new witches
Ah, for some reason I thought we were referring to Russians as witches...at least that what I keep hearing. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
