A hyperLogLog is for counting distinct elements. This and Bloom filters are more about checking whether an element has been seen before; a very different use case.
The paper has a great figure where they illustrate areas of the overhead vs false positive trade-off space where each filter type performs best. Cuckoo filters make an appearance there
Why the hell would you dodge at tree top height? That makes absolutely no sense. Just fly a few centimeters off the ground without dodging and no air defense is going to hit you in a civilian area.
Then HN is, for the lack of a better word, foolish. Politics is violence. What do you think the military does? What do you think the prison system does does? What do you think the police do?
These are all political institutions, and they are all violent; it’s just that the target of the violence is maybe easier for some to ignore (poor black and brown people)
That’s an overgeneralization. It’s like saying that, because a car’s dashboard is made of plastic, the whole car is inherently plastic.
The state has a monopoly on violence, as famously stated, but is not necessarily made of violence, nor should its governance and policy-creation mechanisms necessarily include violence. In fact, the main characteristic of modern democratic institutions is that they removed violence from most of the process.
This seems a little sophistic. Yes, incarceration is not actually violent. It may be "violent" in some metaphorical sense, and some of the other inmates may be violent, but incarceration itself is not violent.
I've had clients get incarcerated, and I've had clients facing potential capital sentences, and there is a world of difference.
The point seems to be that violence is inherent to politics, therefore does not on its own render an act unjustifiable; not that all violence for political purpose is justified.
It's just pointing out that all political power in this world is ultimately held through the direct or indirect threat of violence. It's not a moral judgement but a fact of the world.
If my "politics" disagrees with those of the state, in that I don't believe people have a right to personal property, and that the police have no right to arrest me, then ultimately what will happen is violence against me by the state.
Yes everyone could go around abiding the law all the time, and we could skip the Gordon riots, the suffragettes, the battle of Cable Street etc... . I'm glad that's not the world we live in and that people have the courage to follow through with their convictions against state oppression, with violence if need be.
I’m going to leave you with a quote from wikipedias page on Fascism:
“Fascism rejects the assertion that violence is automatically negative in nature and views imperialism, political violence and war as means that can achieve national rejuvenation”
I never mentioned what politics I agree with, nor can you infer in good faith that I'd celebrate the murder of Jo Cox. You're greatly over-generalising my argument in order to try and prove an absurd consequence.
Maybe an analogy would clarify. Let's suppose you didn't think speech was justified in politics. I would argue that political progress has very often come about because of speech. You cannot then infer that I support the content of every speech made by Tony Blair.
But you regard violence as legitimate and positive political tactic in some circumstances. So did Thomas Mair. I think that belief is problematic, and should not be encouraged. By making the connection between apparently acceptable-for-plaques political violence and the national-day-of-morning kind, I hope to draw attention to the fact that it’s fundamentally problematic.
Everyone believes they are the hero of their own story - including people who hold different political beliefs to our own. They are surely only following the moral code you outline when they stand up for their convictions and reach for the revolver or knife or suicide bomb vest?
The irony here is that acceptable political violence is a facist belief. Perhaps you should investigate facism further: you might find it agreeable. I hear they have the best T-shirts.
Again, you're greatly over-generalising what I'm saying. If violence can sometimes be justified, doesn't follow that everyone who uses violence is justified. It certainly doesn't follow that I support fascism.
There is potentially an argument to be had about what authority you have to decide that your act of violence is justified. I agree, that is difficult. But this again detracts from the core point which is that politics is consistently violent, right or wrong. It doesn't take a fascist state to commit violence for political purposes, it's happening all the time even in civilised countries.
So, people die of starvation in civilized countries - that doesn’t make it right - but we also don’t put up plaques celebrating it.
And that really is the problem - in the one hand we have laws (set by governments) in a civil society that says violence is wrong, political violence doubly so, but at the same time they are putting up a plaque celebrating political violence.
It’s like “violence is bad... (wink)”
So if you were going to put up a plaque to Tony Blair celebrating his involvement in the Good Friday Agreement, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. I loathe the man personally and dislike much of his politics- but you are highlighting a positive thing he did.
Celebrating someone who is literally only thought of today because they failed to murder someone on the street sends a crazy message: “Murder is wrong... (wink)”
For a state this seems somewhat inevitable, however pretty much all state entities have a duty to use as little violence as possible to get the job done. See European human rights act, Geneva convention etc.
At the end of the day - Violet Gibson wasn’t an employee or representative of any government. She was just someone with mental health issues and a revolver.
Again we come back to Thomas Mair, if your principle is that political violence is fine (again - that’s facism), then the only thing you should find objectionable about him is his politics. He was, after all, following your rules.
Personally I try to follow the “do unto others...” golden rule.
“Kill all others” seems to be the guiding principle of too many people.
Generally, my impression is that HN is not against such thing.
Nevertheless, when we are talking about Mussolini or 1926, violence and politics were mixed. There was no such thing as politics without mix of violence, because the question of "who should we be violent against" was the major political question of the time.
Moreover at that time, Mussoliny himself was source of a lot of that violence.
According to this [0] she had moved to Rome in 1922. Unlike 9-11ers, she didn’t move to the country explicitly to perform the action; she likely grew to dislike Mussolini by spending time in the country. By that metric, I’d call it home-grown.
> In her room at the convent Gibson had amassed a collection of newspaper cuttings critical of Mussolini, and others outlining his movements. She also had a box of bullets. The origin of the revolver, her second, was never determined. The lead detective investigating the case believed Gibson was feigning madness and had not acted alone but possibly in collaboration with catholic modernist dissidents from the poor Trastevere neighbourhood. [...]
> In June 1926, succumbing to immense pressure, Gibson made a confession. Her story was that she had committed the crime to impress an Italian duke named Giovanni Colonna, who she had fallen in love with years before in Switzerland. Vehemently opposed to fascism, she claimed Colonna had communicated his desire for Mussolini's death through a series of clues before gifting her with gun and bullets, that led her to the assassination site that fateful day. The duke was under surveillance for anti-fascist activities, and his movements at the time of the shooting could not be accounted for, lending plausibility to Gibson's account.
Clearly this was not the work of a foreign faction, there was a clear element of Italian involvement.
Words placed into the mouth of a crazy woman (implicating an enemy of the people asking the questions) who was determined to kill -somebody- it’s mentioned elsewhere that she may have wanted to target the Pope.
To be clear: Violet Gibson was in no way Italian or connected in any meaningful way to Italy.
One might also observe that the violent attack in a foreign country might almost be ‘Imperialist’.
And if the attack was politically motivated (I personally think she was a few sandwiches short of a picnic), then she’s down for some political violence.
In that case she’s a bit more facist than anti-facist.
Whether political violence is warranted rests upon three factors. Firstly, one must consider if you are initiating political violence or simply reacting - which sadly is necessary. Mussolini obviously had instigated political violence much before.
Then, one must consider efficacy - if it's going to be useless then why bother?
Finally, one must consider the presence of altermatives. If you can at all avoid it, then political violence is not really justifiable.
In this case, the three elements converged, and it's in those cases that political violence can be warranted if done for good. This isn't even controversial, people defend the violence of the US Founding Fathers which engaged in much more violence for much, much, much less.
I fundamentally disagree. On such a basis a white supremisist could justify murder against the ‘violent’ state in the absence of the possibilty of being elected.
Presumably on that basis you see the killing of Jo Cox as justified?
> at the time she pulled the trigger, he was neither a dictator or genocidal
Historians typically mark the official beginning of Mussolini’s dictatorship in 1924, when, following the assassination of socialist MP Giacomo Matteotti by fascists and the subsequent clamour, he went to Parliament and basically told MPs to “shut up or else”. And let’s not forget that he had been appointed Prime Minister with a de-facto coup in 1922.
As for “genocidal”, I’m not sure what parameters could be used. The infamous invasion of Ethiopia with chemical weapons had not happened yet, and obviously the Racial Laws were a long way away, but he had already begun the “pacification” of Libya (war started in 1923). Also, political violence against the opposition was already large-scale, as shown with Matteotti.
By 1926 it was pretty clear he wasn’t a simple political leader for sure, and he had already spoken at length against representative democracy. Whether that deserved an assassination attempt, is debatable; but there is little question that by 1926 he could be defined as a violent dictator.
Personally I think putting up a plaque celebrating someone with mental health problems and a revolver, who attempted to murder someone doesn’t make any sense.
Then why did Violet Gibson try to kill Mussolini, not someone less well protected? If you want to cause as much murder as possible, shouldn't you kill a policeperson or a pacifist activist rather than a fascist dictator?
On a similar note, the Gigastructural Engineering & More mod for the space strategy game Stellaris adds a broad variety of fully visually modeled megastructures that sufficiently advanced space empires can build, ranging from academic theoreticals like Alderson disks to 'more gun' space combat uses like Death Stars to just-there-to-be-silly items like Discworld-style flat 'planets'.
If you like Tsutomu Nihei's megastructures and video games (specifically Half-Life 2 modding scene and old-school, retro-to-the-bone shooters), you should check out G String [1]. My 2020 GOTY hands down.
But an absolute go-to for lovers of virtual architecture is NaissanceE [2], which is free on Steam.
