All Entries (Page 31)

SBWG - The Pathshortener And Other Recent Changes Entry created on 2021-12-05 Authors: steeph (370) Categories: Bash (31) Code (31) Computer (78) Linux (35) Projects (41) SBWG (18) Scripts (28) Software (52) Languages used: en (255) Topics: Projects → Code → Bash Scripts → SBWG (16) edit

I made it my goal to harden SBWG before I start to implement new features. Before I call the next version of this project 1.0 I want to make sure that unexpected input from the command line or from source files, absurd numbers of absurdly long tags and content items, stupidly weird filenames or random binary data as tag values as well as purposfully created traps in the various places where input is processed are handled well, meaning that nothing fails unless there is no sensible way around it, and if something fails, that nothing breaks. Data should be filtered carefully, errors should be handled well and whereever possible data should be made processible if it was supplied in an unprocessible form to reduce the chances of errors. On top of that I wanted to make sure that the script did its job in a reasonable amount of time considering the circumstances. I mean, it will never be very fast. Bash is just not the right language for that. But there certainly were some repetitive tasks that could be improved. Fot the latter I created a simple caching functionality that will probably be extended in the future. I managed to reduce the (calculated/estimated) generation time of my biggest test web site from almost 300 years to a few days. Actual web sites will of course not take that long to generate, even on a slow machine. A huge web site will maybe take up to one day to generate completely, even without the new options that keep the script from re-generating existing unchanged parts of the web site. But before sombody will try to create such a big web site with SBWG I will probably have improved speed further. And even then it's a worst-case time.

As part of the aforementioned goals I have started working on last new feature before version 1.0. I call it the pathreducer. Since many of the files created by SBWG are named after the tags they represent, they can become quite long and contain almost any printible character, including multi-byte unicode characters or characters of character sets I haven't even heard of. I definitely don't want to restrict more than I already have what characters and how many of them tag values can contain. Especially filesystems used by operating systems from Microsoft are relatively restrictive in maximum allowed directory, path and filename length and allowed characters. By default the pathreducer is not used. But if enabled via command line option or in a web site's settings file, it will filter directory and filenames and shorten them to a user-defined maximum length. If the pathreducer decides to change a path elements it also adds a 6-character hash value to make shortened or otherwise reduced path elements as good as unique.

That works well for now and even can create 8.3 or 6.3 filenames for old DOS filesystems. But the result is not very nice because it isn't aware of what filesystem it is going to write a file to. To be save it removes more characters than it would have to for ext and NTFS filesystems. In the future I may extend the pathreducer to detect the filesystem at least of the root of the output directory automatically and decide how exactly path elements should be reduced according to the actual limitations of the present filesystem. Than it may even be enabled by default, even though it can increase the generation time quite a bit.

There are still some tests that I want to do and I will probably find some more things that I want to fix before version 1.0. But I see light.

Comment via email
Real Life Entry created on 2021-12-05 Authors: steeph (370) Categories: Language (7) Opinion (9) Peeves (2) Real Life (1) Society (2) Thoughts (72) Trolls (2) Languages used: en (255) edit

Of all the things people do wrong in the usage of language, this is probably my pet peeve. Maybe because I believe that I can reasonably argue against it.

People use the term "real life" ("IRL" and, very similarly, "real world") as if it would mean the opposite of "online" or "over the internet" or "using some electronic medium". Hereafter I will call this the wrong usage of the term. It is done so often and regularly that it actually does mean one of these things. Before I describe what I think the problem with it is, let me try to explain what I'm talking about, exactly. Both of those words (real and life) have meanings on their own and using them together is absolutely in line with those individual meanings. I don't find it absurd to expect that the phrase means "the life that is actually true, as opposed to fictional". In fact, I consider it better to expect this meaning because not only did this meaning exist first, it also continues to be used. "The real world" is used meaning the opposite of a virtual world. I suppose the internet was considered to be a virtual world in the beginning and assume that that's where the wrong usage of "real world" stems from.

The main problem that I see is that when people regularly and naturally apply the wrong usage, the notion that the internet is not part of the real world, the real life, is reinforced, which I fear may influence the perception and the expectation that what happens on the internet does not have the same meaning or effects on life as things that happen without the internet playing a major role. In some ways they are (e.g. greater possible audience on social media than on a soapbox), but not in the way the use of "real world" as the opposite implies.

A conversation in a chat room can be much more real than a conversation offline. E-Mails, their meaning and effects on the world aren't less real than those of letter written or printed on paper. A confession over a video chat platform is not unreal compared to a confession over a telephone call, which is not unreal compared to a confession given in close physical proximity, just different. A threat posted in a Whatsapp group doesn't have less impact than a thread yelled at a schoolyard or under four eyes.

I imagine that the more this wrong usage is ignored the more its wrong implications get internalised by society and individuals. I wouldn't go so far to assume that there is a relavant relation between the wrong usage of "real life" and "real world" and the prevalence of "cyberbullying", online harassment and other extreme forms of modern trollship. But I also don't think the possibility that language influences the thinking and by that extension the actions of humans should be overlooked. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some connection to be found. But I don't know of any research on this nor would I expect to find any.

Comment via email
Film: Harold And Maude Entry created on 2021-12-05 Authors: steeph (370) Categories: Death (7) Films (22) Languages used: en (255) Topics: Films (15) edit

This is a movie that hardly anybody seems to know nowadays. I have no idea how well known it was when it came out in 1971. But I imagine not enough. I don't find most movies from the 80s and older very enjoyable. So I guess by that definition I have to count "Harold And Maude" (IMDB) to the relatively few special movies from that time period. It's not moved or impressed me like other movies on that imaginary list. But it's a very nice story very well told and an uncommon story at that.

I guess that's all I wanted to say here. Check it out (if you want to watch a coming-of-age movie about friendshiplove and a life-defining experience that is unlike any other movie that would be aptly so described and features just enough implied humor to not be called entirely a drama by me).

Comment via email
Ges Entry created on 2021-12-02 Authors: steeph (370) Categories: Corona (12) Mobile Communications (1) Silly (32) Languages used: de (88) edit
This entry is a reply to the entry 'Spätpandemiesemantik'.

Also, das wird langsam etwas kommpliziert mit den ganzen Corona-Ges. Da dachte ich mir, ich schreib' mal eine Übersicht.

  • 1G: Menschen, die ein echter Gangster sind. Beispielsatz: "Dude, du bist so 1 G."
  • 2G: Der Default-Zustand in EDGE-Land. Beispielsatz: "Hey, hast hier du 2G?" - "Nee, kein Balken."
  • 2G+: Marketing-Sprech für 2G mit zusätzlichen Einschränkungen.
  • 3G: Menschen, die mit oral verabreichtem Impfstoff auf Bierbasis geimpft sind (gebraut, gezapft, getrunken).
  • 3G+: Zustand nach zu viel Bierkonsum. Beispielsatz: "Du siehst nach 3G aus." - "Ja, plus!"
  • 4G: Vier mal geimpft mit zertifiziertem LTE-Vakszien.
  • 5G: Geimpft mit einzig wahrem Mikrokontrollochip.

Gern' gescheh'n.

Comment via email
Spätpandemiesemantik Entry created on 2021-11-05 Authors: struki (8) Categories: Corona (12) Thoughts (72) Languages used: de (88) edit

Als Zwischending zwischen 2G und 3G etabliert sich gerade eine weitere Methode, Veranstaltungs-Zugang in der Pandemie zu regeln:

Geimpft, Geneßen oder PCR-Test.

Und wie wird 's genannt?

3G+

Ich mein, häh? Es ist doch zu den 3G keine weitere Option hinzugekommen, es wird eine eingeschränkt...

Wenn überhaupt dann ja wohl 2G+(PCR). Das macht einfach keinen Sinn *smh*

Comment via email
Generating Bitmap Files With Bash Entry created on 2021-10-17 Authors: steeph (370) Categories: Bash (31) Bitmaps (1) Code (31) Computer (78) Linux (35) Scripts (28) Software (52) Languages used: en (255) Topics: Projects → Code → Bash Scripts (23) edit

I needed a large amount of image files to try something. I wanted them to be different images. But what's in them didn't matter. So I looked at a BMP file to see how I could create one byte for byte automatically. Bitmap is just the first uncompressed format that I thought of. This is what I came up with:


rbmp() {
  echo -n -e '\x42\x4D\x2A\x02\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x7A\x00\x00\x00\x6C\x00\x00\x00\x10\x00\x00\x00\x09\x00\x00\x00\x01\x00\x18\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\xB0\x01\x00\x00\x23\x2E\x00\x00\x23\x2E\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x42\x47\x52\x73\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x02\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x'
  c=$(</dev/urandom tr -dc '0123456789ABCDEF' | head -c864 | sed 's/.\{2\}/&\\x/g')
  echo -n -e "$c"'00'
}

Or, if you would like to do run a command for each pixel/color before it is generated, you can do it like this:


# Create a 24 bit bitmap file of 16x9 randomly colored pixels
randombmp() {
  echo -n -e '\x42\x4D\x2A\x02\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x7A\x00\x00\x00\x6C\x00\x00\x00\x10\x00\x00\x00\x09\x00\x00\x00\x01\x00\x18\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\xB0\x01\x00\x00\x23\x2E\x00\x00\x23\x2E\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x42\x47\x52\x73\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x02\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00'
  i=1
  while (( i < 433 )); do
    c=$(</dev/urandom tr -dc '0123456789ABCDEF' | head -c2)
    echo -n -e '\x'"$c"
    i=$((i+1))
  done
}

I'm sure I did something wrong. I just copied the header of some BMP file with the right format that I don't even know what it was created with. I didn't actually look up how the header of a BMP file is composed. But it worked.

Comment via email
Entry created on 2021-10-16 Authors: steeph (370) Categories: Opinion (9) Personal (13) Technology (5) Thoughts (72) Languages used: en (255) edit

I feel like I'm not using modern technology and other privileges that are available to me today to it's full potential. I think that nobody is even able to. I mean, I'm sitting here on a bench in the fields writing a blog entry and uploading it to "my" web server via SSH, listening to an independent web radio over the internet in-between browsing the web (that really is almost world-wide) for any information that interests me at that moment, with a "phone" capable of so much more than I would have thought 20 years ago even desktop computer should be able to do. But still, so much would be possible with today's technology (mainly the internet and small, battery powered devices). Humanity, what are you doing, wasting your own inventions? steeph, what are you doing wasting your time and resources on listening to some random person talking about something just because it fulfils your momentary desire for information about that topic while typing this sentence?

Comment via email
Lucid dream induction really is easy when it's not hard. Entry created on 2021-08-29 (edited 2021-10-15) Authors: steeph (370) Categories: Dreaming (9) Lucid Dream Induction (3) Lucid Dreaming (12) Research (3) Science (6) Languages used: en (255) edit

Becoming conscious of your dream state while dreaming is in a category in my mind that I call "like stopping smoking". It isn't like stopping smoking in many other ways. But in a way it is similar. There is no obvious requirement in order to achieve one of those goals. You just have to do it and it's done. As far as clearly formulatable instructions go, that's it. Just remember to notice the next time you're dreaming and you'll become aware. The first ever defined, written down and named lucid dream induction technique, based on the research of and published by Stephen LaBerge, is based a great deal on this assumption. MILD (Mnemonic Induction to Lucid Dreaming) is one of the most widely known lucid dream (LD) induction techniques. But it often is condensed so much that it loses most of its important instructions in the most popular online guides. For a complete picture with all the practical exercises the, as it were, original description from the book Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming (book scan) is still the best introduction and guide to this induction technique and probably always will be.

I've used many different techniques to induce lucid dreams over in my time. Some with more success, some with less, some without. After a few years of regular practice, I've come to focus on a hand-full of techniques and personal adaptions of published techniques that seemed to help me best achieve my dream goals. Almost everybody who does intense and/or prolonged lucid dream practice seems to get to a point where they find "their" technique(s) or combination(s). That makes sense because people's life's are structured differently and different personalities and preferences presumably make different techniques more successful than others. But no LD induction technique is surefire. Apart from few counterexamples every dreamer wakes up with no new memory of dream lucidity more often than with a new success. It's an ubiquitous subject on every lucid dreaming forum and a inherent part of lucid dreaming practice. Becoming lucid every night is just not a realistic goal for most dreamers, no matter how hard they wish and try.

A lot could be said (and is said elsewhere) about the best approach and the right mind-set for lucid dream induction. I could write a huge review of different approaches, techniques and practices based on my own experiences. But I don't think that this would be much more helpful than the countless blog entries and forum posts about other dreamer's experiences. They are my experiences. Parts of them may overlap with useful tips that you can find in other posts and guides. But they are as likely to be helpful to you specifically as any other honest, optimistic step-by-step guide on the net, which is usually not at all. I could write a review of scientific studies and what practical instruction one could derive from them that have the highest likelihood of helping a large percentage of lucid dreamers looking for instructions. But such a review wouldn't be huge because the amount of comparable studies on the efficiency of LD induction techniques is tiny. The amount of research on the subject isn't large as it is, especially well-design studies, especially with more than a few participants. And the methodology used differs in almost every single study. That's why I so easily accept the fact that the lucid dreaming community still creates knew "knowledge" almost exclusively based on the sum of many individual anecdotes. The sum differs for everybody, based on what web sites they read and which posts they read and skip. Helpful practices emerge out of repetition of self experiment and the amateurish and biased publications in the form of short forum posts and incomplete and deformed retellings. As with mutations in other areas (with which I struggle to compare these memetic changes), prolific evolution is incredibly rare, which is why every dreamer with the wish to be able to become more lucid in their dreams or to have more lucid dreams is still stuck with blindly trying all sorts of practices without immediate feedback of progress or success.

I want to believe that there is some element in the variety of dreamers and LD induction attempts that plays such a large role in deciding the outcome of intentional attempts to obtain conscious experiences in dreams that managing this possibly yet unknown element would lead to a drastic rise in the success rate of such attempts. I'm far from being able to ascertain what this proposed element could be, if there was one. I'm just someone reading interesting sounding research papers and forum posts on lucid dreaming and experimenting with my own dreams. But to make my thought more intelligible, here is an idea how this could look like.

Because I'm in no way knowledgable in either neurology nor psychology I'll keep it short and broad, in the hopes of not saying too many too stupid things. Brain chemistry plays a big role in how we consciously experience the world. No lucid dreamer (at least not that I've heard about) knows what's going on chemically in their brain when they do their practice. They don't know how the repeated practice influences brain chemistry and they don't know what was chemically different in their brain during their successful induction attempts compared with their unsuccessful induction attempts. No lucid dreamer takes regular blood tests to learn something about the stuff that is pumped through their brains when they go to bed. Drug use is a common topic among some interested lucid dreamers and some medications have been proven to increase the LD frequency. But that's just a few medications that were tried because it seemed likely that they might have this affect based on what whas already known about them, mainly about their side effects when used with other intents. Remember: I don't know anything about neurology. But I can't help but think that intuitively it seems to me that there must be a large untapped potential for lucid dream research that could make dream consciousness easier to achieve.

Please don't hold back if you want to tell me how wrong I am. Especially if you want to tell me why I'm wrong. :)

Comment via email
Go To Navigation Page
Show/Hide Navigation
Mastodon