> I am still not able to recognize a sound and understand what note that is

That is called "perfect pitch" and it is not necessary to play music. It's very rare to have perfect pitch, and it seems to be innate, not something you learn.

Contextual note recognition (relative pitch) is what musicians normally use to jam. It comes with practice and contextual clues that you pick up over tens of years (including familiarity with your jammate's instrument, even if it's not the one you play; familiarity with multiple eras of music theory; pure practice), so this shouldn't be your #1 priority since it just comes along for free (or a bit of practice), as you learn. Music playing 101 is just... playing music in your instrument. You don't need to recognize notes until you want to jam, which comes years after you start playing an instrument.

Some people seem to just be physically unable to distinguish relative pitch though.

You might want to start here: https://www.musictheory.net/ (not affiliated, I just think it's a very good resource for Music Theory 101).

Isn't perfect pitch just when you can tell a note without having a reference tone?

Once you have a point of reference things just go up and down and from there it should be manageable to identify each note.

Also, not sure about the innate thing. Seems to me that it's just a neural pathway that can be created by playing or listening to a whole lot of music while being aware of which tone is which, for example by reading the score alongside.

Perfect pitch is quite debated. What we know is that: 1) Most people with perfect pitch have it mostly on their main instrument, and they translate the pitch in their inner ear if they hear a different instrument, and 2) Many with perfect pitch report that it gets less reliable with age.

There seems to be many different ways of having perfect pitch. For example, some singers may connect it more to the physical sensation of applying tension to their vocal cords (so they have to be singing the pitch or imagine singing it to be able to tell). For others it's purely auditive.

> Some people seem to just be physically unable to distinguish relative pitch though.

I used to think I was pitch blind until one day it just clicked. It just takes practice in my opinion.

I definitely think that's a bridge to gap, but MCP is not the answer. OSes currently lack the tools to do this properly, but I hope they will improve. Agents need more granular sandboxing in all areas.

> Someone tested this, and it doesn't look to be saturated.

They could still pelicanmaxxing but the RL for "pelican riding a bicycle" does incidentally improve "<animal> <verb> <vehicle>".

Or they could've predicted someone would check if they're pelicanmaxxing or the benchmark would switch eventually, so they preemptively RL'd a mixture of animals and vehicles.

Anybody knows why Fable is railguarded in particular against biology tasks? I'm out of the loop here.

Is it drugs? Bio/chemical weapons?

I did reverse engineering as a hobby in my teens. The method for 90% of cracks back in the day boiled down to:

1. Launch the app.

2. Trigger the "not registered" screen.

3. Search for the string in the binary.

4. Search for code that references the location of the string and squint hard until you spot the "check if CD-key is valid" section.

5. Patch the final opcode from "jnz" to "jz". If you felt fancy, reverse engineer the checking algorithm to create a keygen instead of a patch.

Anticracking methods became mainstream in the late 90s, but they weren't very sophisticated and most amounted to obfuscation.

Long live +ORC, +Fravia and CracksLatinos.

This was me as well. +HCU and searchlores.org were so much fun. The coolest thing I remember was the hash-maze but I couldn't find it again. I saw Fravia live in 1999 :D

Switching 0x74 to 0x75 and vise versa lead to me ordering the free Intel books and diving into assembly and osdev for a while. There was something zen-like wading through disassembled code with a complete beginner mind and looking for patterns. This and reading Phrack around the "Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit" times are probably my favorite memories related to computing because I only had a very vague understanding of what was going on mixed with a sense of "wait you can do this" and a lack of readily available information.

I did this to an industrial piece of software that required a hardware dongle to function, that my father and his colleagues were using.

For a few hours, I was a teenage god among men.

That hits the feels. Sometimes I miss late night sessions on SoftICE hah

Efnet user spotted :)

Reticulum just means net or net-like structure.

You don't need PKI.

Nothing prevents RustDesk from implementing TLS TOFU (see e.g. Gemini Protocol), which offers the same security guarantees as SSH TOFU.

I always find these mesh networks landing pages a bit lacking in information, and I wish they weren't.

How is this different to, from example, Yggdrasil Network[0]?

https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/

RNS vs Yggdrasil has previously been discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46689170

Makes me think of good old Yggdrasil Linux.

Makes me think of SCP-2207

IIRC it's mainly just different protocol parameters allowing Reticulum to work on really slow links, but also wastes performance on really fast links.

> struggling to keep up with the frontier

I think the question is whether that's even relevant.

If AI becomes a commodity (will it?) you're better off being Google than OpenAI.

Microsoft struggled to keep up with the mobile industry frontier and here they are, healthier than ever.

Personally my benchmark for a compiler is way higher than "it has a lot of tests". Way higher.