#phm#ryland grace#rocky the eridian#project hail mary spoilers




seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from China
seen from Iraq
seen from China
seen from Argentina
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Philippines

seen from South Korea

seen from Malaysia

seen from Spain

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The internet was made for privacy
I'm on a tour with my new book, the international bestseller Enshittification: catch me next in Miami, Burbank, Lisbon! Full schedule here.
While "tech exceptionalism" can be a grave sin (as with the "move fast and break things" ethos that wrecked so much of our world, especially its labor markets), there are ways in which tech is truly exceptional, in the sense of bringing forth capabilities and affordances that have never existed before, in all of human history.
One obvious way in which tech is exceptional: its flexibility. Digital computers are "Turing-complete, universal von Neumann machines," which means that they are engines capable of computing every valid program. They are truly general purpose. We have many other general purpose machines, of course, but they are simple things, like wheels. Computers are unique in that they are both complex and universal, and every computer can run every program. Just as we don't know how to make knives that only cut in beneficial ways, we also don't know how to make computers that only run desirable programs.
Every computer can run every program, including ones that the user doesn't want (viruses), or that the manufacturer doesn't want (ad-blockers). No one knows how to make a computer that is almost Turing-complete. There's no such thing as "Turing-complete minus one." We can't make a computer that only runs the programs the manufacturer has authorized – all we can do is criminalize the act modifying your own computer to do what you tell it to, even if the manufacturer objects:
https://memex.craphound.com/2012/01/10/lockdown-the-coming-war-on-general-purpose-computing/
I've devoted a lot of my life to exploring the policy implications of this amazing fact, but that's not the only amazing, exceptional thing about technology. There's at least one other way in which modern digital technology has produced something that is genuinely, civilizationally novel: encryption.
Encryption – scrambling data so that it can only be read by its intended recipient – is an age-old project for both the authorities (who used ciphers to keep their secrets safe since the time of the Caesars) and for those who would overthrow them (revolutionary movements have always used codes to protect themselves from the authorities they sought to dethrone).
But WWII ushered in a new era, in which encryption (and attempts to break it) went digital, as Alan Turing and the codebreakers of Bletchley Park turned themselves to a computer-aided mathematics of scrambling and descrambling. In the decades that followed, a modern form of encryption emerged, one that was powerful beyond the wildest dreams of the Caesars and their revolutionary adversaries.
Modern, computerized encryption can scramble data to the point where it is literally unscramblable by an unauthorized party. In the eyeblink moment between you pressing the camera button on your phone and the resulting image being saved to its mass storage, the bits that make up that image are scrambled so thoroughly that even if every hydrogen atom in the universe were made into a computer, and even if all those computers were put to work guessing at the key, we would run out of time and universe before we ran out of keys.
Even futuristic, experimental technologies like quantum computing that may revolutionize codebreaking are also revolutionizing scrambling itself:
https://signal.org/blog/pqxdh/
The history of encryption is seriously fraught. Until the early 1990s, the NSA classed working encryption as a munition and banned civilian access to a whole branch of mathematics. It wasn't until Cindy Cohn – then a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, now its executive director – convinced a court that the First Amendment protected the right to publish computer code, that we were all able to gain access to this essential technology, which today safeguards your messages, files, banking transactions, and the software updates for your car's brakes, your pacemaker, and the informatics on airplanes. Cohn has announced her retirement from EFF in 2026, and while she will be sorely missed, we do have her memoir, Privacy's Defender, to look forward to:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262051248/privacys-defender/
The legalization of encryption was a starting gun for the internet itself, as true information security entered the picture and pervaded every part of service design. Every security crisis, every scandal (e.g. Snowden), jolted the effort to encrypt the internet forward, and in this way, much of the internet lurched into a state we can call "encrypted by default."
But even as this privacy-preserving technology was perfected and made ubiquitous, something weird and contradictory happened: mass surveillance also took off online. The ad-tech industry – and its handmaidens, the data-broker industry – rigged the game so that our private activities were only encrypted in such a way as to defend their privacy, but not ours. Our data is encrypted in transit to the servers we interact with, and when it is at rest on those servers' mass storage devices, but it is not encrypted in a way that prevents companies from data-mining it, or decrypting it and selling it on or giving it away or combining it with surveillance data purchased or traded from others.
chat control
The public has spoken against it, the backlash was there, then Germany started opposing it too and the Danish proposal seemingly stopped. But now suddenly on the 12th of November they're going for another push, in a rather deceptive manner. Here are the new tweaks to the proposal and how they're trying to go about razing what eu is about and your privacy online:
Learn about the EU Chat Control proposal and contact your representatives to protect digital privacy and encryption.
Just before a decisive meeting in Brussels, digital rights expert and former Member of the European Parliament Dr. Patrick Breyer is soundin
Infodump on Gallifreyan
When people say “Gallifreyan,” they usually mean Sherman’s Circular Gallifreyan (the fan system). This one:
And buckle up mothafuckas since I'm about to dive into mathematical modelling of this beautiful bastard.
I thought about the possible word encodings and calculating info density. So, I considered symbol set sizes, entropy, error correction (checksums), redundancy, and how these relate to things like compression. I started by setting up a basic model suitable for things like Circular Gallifreyan, which might have 24 to 26 letters. I adjusted for this and worked out examples carefully.
For a word-circle with n letters, each letter occupies M angular slots, and repeated letters are allowed. The formula for capacity in bits per letter is log2(options per glyph). With 26 possible letters, each encodes as 4.7 bits. Adding features like angle or stroke variants increases options, but many are redundant and could be used for steganography. In sentences, the circle's arrangement and spacing hold extra hidden info, like covert channels.
For steganography, I considered using angle quantization by dividing the circle into bins, each hiding bits. At 1000x1000 px, the smallest discernible angle is about 1 degree, so we get around 360 bins, though realistically around 60. For letters, the angular slots would be about 3.6 bits per letter, which could support covert channels via slight jitter. I modelled literal encoding with 26 letters, yielding roughly 4.7 bits per letter.
For a word of length n, it's n * 4.7 bits without considering language redundancy. But English lets us compress further, so for large text, each character carries 1 to 1.5 bits of information. The Gallifreyan system adds redundancy for aesthetics, not cryptographic compression. I also considered a parametric system where rotations per letter increase covert capacity. For example, with 12 rotation angles, 4 dot options, and 2 thickness levels, 5 letters would give 32.9 bits of covert information.
When thinking about channel capacity under noise, I needed to consider the quantization step and potential drawing errors. To reliably transmit r bins, the bin width must be much greater than six times the standard deviation of angular error. I could also compare this to the Pigpen cipher.
Treat the script as two layers:
Literal layer (decoding-visible): a monoalphabetic substitution that maps the 26 English letters to circle+arc+dot shapes placed around a word-circle in clockwise order. Parametric layer (reader-ignored): geometric degrees of freedom (start angle, inter-letter spacing, stroke thickness, dot count variants, radial offsets, etc.) that don’t change the decoded text but can carry extra bits (steganography).
I quantified both for Whovian's entertainment :D

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
it's going to take a massive, catastrophic data breach/identity theft situation for your average joe "i've got nothing to hide" smith and his wife jane "we must protect the children" smith to wake up to the dangers of being required to upload their id to use every online service. that moment is inevitable. it's just a matter of time.
but it will be too late. the laws will have passed, the infrastructure will be in place, vpns and encryption will be outlawed, and everyone will know someone who had their identity stolen and bank accounts emptied, or who can't find a job because they looked at gay furry art fifteen years ago, or whose insurance claim was denied because they researched diy hrt, or who had the police at their door for saving photos of their own kids in the pool to their camera roll.
I made a tool that takes an image and visualizes how vulnerabilities in some encryption methods allow patterns to be discerned from it, even after encryption. I find the resulting effects to be very interesting!
if you want to try this yourself, you can download the tool here! https://espimyte.itch.io/eyecrypt