3 comments

  • jdw640 minutes ago
    Ecologically speaking, there is a term called “carcinization” the evolutionary tendency for different organisms to independently evolve crablike forms.<p>The condition for carcinization is usually described as a kind of “shared condition.” After reading this article, that is what I felt.<p>In other words, from the perspective of shared conditions, isn’t it possible that systems receive similar pressures when they need to mix information?<p>1. There is a state space. 2. Each part of the input affects many parts of the output. 3. A simple rule is not enough, so nonlinearity becomes necessary. 4. But the hardware cannot be allowed to stall, so the system evolves toward a structure where simple transformations are repeated many times.<p>This feels similar to how humans solve nonlinear differential equations.<p>If so, perhaps the structure of human cognition itself works in a similar way: when facing nonlinearity, we break it into smaller structures and design around those smaller parts.<p>Because my academic background is limited, I find it difficult to express this properly in language. But I think this kind of pressure can also be applied to programming and software theory.<p>When I think about software engineering, it also often starts from the smallest element that does not change easily, and then builds larger systems by composing those elements. In OOP, that unit is the conceptual object. In FP, it is the function. In DOP, it is data.<p>FP is mathematical. DOP is aligned with the data that computers store and transmit. OOP is connected to our abstract model of the world. That may be why different people are good at different paradigms.<p>OOP compresses the world into objects and responsibilities. FP compresses the world into functions and composition. DOP compresses the world into data and transformable structures. Utlimately, it is a question of how we cut complexity, what we choose as the minimal unit of decomposition.<p>Then what should this idea be called? And if we apply this to AI coding, what would it imply?<p>I have thoughts, but because I did not study enough, I feel frustrated that I cannot express them more fully. I wish I had learned more.
  • tryauuum1 hour ago
    Can anyone recommend any good content to learn cryptography? Like, even if I read the algorithm for AES I have zero understanding about why it works this way<p>I&#x27;ve finished the Cryptography I on Coursera already. Can&#x27;t recommend it enough
    • yason14 minutes ago
      Back in the day, I read Applied Cryptography (by Schneier) and clarity rained upon many things.
    • coldstartops48 minutes ago
      I&#x27;ve been through Introduction to Modern Cryptography by Katz and Lindell. Can recommend, as it starts with Caesars cipher, one time pads, and builds towards modern cryptography.
    • pet_the_bird1 hour ago
      &quot;Cryptography Made Simple&quot; By Nigel Smart and &quot;A Graduate Course in Applied Cryptography&quot; by Dan Boneh and Victor Shoup are excellent resources for people that have affinity with Math and CS. The second resource can be a tough read, and I would strongly recommend not skipping the first few chapters.
    • cumshitpiss51 minutes ago
      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cs.ru.nl&#x2F;~joan&#x2F;papers&#x2F;JDA_VRI_Rijndael_2002.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cs.ru.nl&#x2F;~joan&#x2F;papers&#x2F;JDA_VRI_Rijndael_2002.pdf</a><p>A large part of this book is aimed at the readers who want to know why we designed Rijndael in the way we did. For them, we explain the ideas and principles underlying the design of Rijndael, culminating in our wide trail design strategy.