Yes, but a 3 of 4 SSS is not possible with the linked web page. It's also not user-friendly to expect non-technical users to manually go through multiple rounds of SSS in order to restore the original secret. Ideally it'd just be one page that clearly explains exactly what they need to provide and then restores the secret for them.
before I learned of shamir secret sharing, I wondered why one couldn't do the same exact thing with a par2 like system (albiet with smaller pieces than a par2 system would traditionally have). i.e. you have X bits of data, you create Y*X/N sized recovery blocks (where Y > N). You hand each recovery block to individual users. and any N users can get together to recover the key and decrypt the contents.
Well in theory the base math is indeed the same; unfortunately though the "randomly chosen" part of shamir's secret sharing is fairly important to the security because information theoretic security of the scheme requires each fragment to be as large as the original secret by way of essentially including a desired count of random data blocks to the original before applying the reed-solomon-like erasure coding to it where now enough fragments to reconstruct the secret plus all random blocks have to be combined.
Also the way of usage of the erasure code has to be selected to not be leaking information but that's more of an issue of not picking a bad way of how to implement the basic concept here. Basically just a case of "do follow the instructions to shamir's secret sharing, don't do something different just because it's a popular way of implementing reed-Solomon".
Yes, you can just GF(256), but if you're worried I'd also just use a prime field instead.
it is annoying that it can't remember it by series. Perhaps for a normal series I don't want captions but for a foreign language one I do. Perhaps for a foreign language that I'm good at I don't want it, but for others I do. Perhaps for a foreign language that I'm learning, I want it in that foreign language (ala english for english content) but dont want it for others.
Global "works", but remembering by series would be so much better.
as someone who bought a lifetime pass years ago when it was cheap, I'm more concerned about this indicating that they are in desparate straits and are heading towards going out of business.
I like plex, I've tried jellyfin and emby and plex has always come out ahead (handling the metadata and the general user experience) and if plex goes bellyup i guess I'll move, but I'll be sad. At least I feel I've gotten my value out of my lifetime plex pass.
I had a jellyfin server on the same machine as my plex. I really tried to use both, the jellyfin experience was so much worse overall.
It had one technical feature that I valued (the ability to tone/color map dolby vision content for non dolby vision devices), but that was such a minimal feature for me (very little of my content is in the proprietary dolby vision colorspace).
I have a lifetime Plex Pass, but I'd gleefully dump it for open source if the experience were as good.
But as you say, it's not, and the lack of churn (only patch releases and one blog post this last 6 months) doesn't inspire me to think it's getting better nearly quick enough.
Are you talking about the Jellyfin server? It is quite an active project. Last release was 10.11.8 about a month ago, and github says that there have been 1049 commits to master since then.
Currently the terminal doesn't really process input itself, it just gives the program running the "raw" fd.
If instead the terminal gave the processes a pipe (for instance) and consumed all the pty input itself (and its end of the pipe being a buffer of that content), why wouldn't it be the same?
pipes buffer, and you don't know when the child is actually reading? (Maybe you could cook something up with ptrace, since it would be a blocking read in this case...)
it doesn't cover you getting disabled so you can't work anymore at the age of 30 after working 8 years.
1600% higher return is great when you work from yours 20s to your 50s/60s and can essentially self insure yourself at that point with it, but as the person you are responding to you is (I believe) trying to say, that's not everyone.
Fair, but given that we're talking about a hypothetical government program, "index-based retirement fund" doesn't imply you're the only one contributing to said fund.
in the country I'm now in somewhere around 18% of my salary is basically put into my "pension" (basically equivalent to a 401k). around 6% from my salary, around 6% match from employer and around 6% for severance (that one gets when they leave said employer, but can stay in pension, and most reccomend it stay there unless you really need it to make ends meet as otherwise pulling out 1/3 of your pension contributions).
This is external to disability insurance that we and our employers also have to contribute to. So I'd agree to a large extent that the govt forcing employees and employers to contribute significant amounts to 401k like programs could be in the interest of everyone in the USA but one needs a disability insurance program on the side as well and that isn't particularly cheap.
these policies hurt employees (at least US taxed ones, other countries only tax at liquidity events).
Large insiders (founders, investors et al), still get to unload their shares (i.e. to future investors), while employees who might have worked for the company for years and accumulated options (or sometimes unsellable RSUs) due to the company not being public get hit with large tax hits either at the same of vesting (for RSUs, but at least that's somewhat manageable) or at the time of leaving the company (due to the need to buy one's shares within 90 days or lose them and then be hit with a tax on the delta).
why do you assume we wouldn't have seen value in satellites if we didn't see value in going to the moon (or mars)?
There's clearly an extraordinary value in satellites from a military perspective, for instance to enable spying. Heck, Hubble directly benefited from the work that went into spy satellites and NASA was afterwards gifted 2 uneeded spy satellites to use for scientific exploration (1 is (was? as in finished) being converted to be used, the other AFAIK is still in storage).
GPS wasn't created to enable us to do anything in space, but to focus down here on earth. i.e. what was needed to fight wars better. One can argue if that was "necessary" but it was clearly earth focused.
I'm not saying we wouldn't have seen value. I'm saying it's always possible to argue value is somewhere else and point at someone in poverty, perhaps. It's easy to see short term and hard to see long term, and I'm saying a balance is required.
reply