Hmmm, I wonder if that’s a wifi security bug: I connected to a network and the wifi then asked me to select a network, hitch means the connection could be inturrupted and another retwork inserted. My confidence in this is based on observation and a guess that this could be replicated in the circumstances where the rating of the interrupting network exceeds the rating of the connected network, and the choice made by the user to select the connected network isn’t treated as ending the thread. That means there’s a thread open the user is unaware of, one that treats the actions of the user as values that determine a trust factor, meaning a yes, and this can actually return a result that frustrates the user’s desires.
This statement has layers. The user is a layer and the functionality of the user enters when selecting the network – in my case, when I chose to connect to my own iPhone from this iPad, so there’s me and my action. Then the user disappears, having passed the value yes to the connection running. That runs and is interrupted. To be more accurate, what happened is disconnection: I was disconnected from my iPhone but could reconnect and did that quickly. So the value yes passes not to another wifi network but to the network selector. I don’t know if that can be forced because I don’t know the extent of access this hole enables. If you can substitute without the dialogue, that would be ideal. You could even spoof the name of the original network connection by adding something to the name that’s barely visible, like a space. That’s what practice is for.
At a higher level, this means a design defect. To close the hole, you can make it as small as possible by putting in a harder yes. One assumption I’ve made is time: the interruption/disconnection occurred within a short period of selecting my iPhone. That suggests it was within a certain amount of some sort of countable time, like packets sent and received or literal clock cycles. You could shorten the count. I’m also assuming the dialogue is triggered as part of the exploit, which means there may be ways to use the insertion to block access to repair. That could keep the hole open longer. There’s also the chance the hole isn’t actually there unless other processes have also made errors, meaning this may depend on other failure happening first. That other failure could be complex, so I can’t pin down reproducibility.
I thought this was fun. I have no idea if it’s right, but the ideas are sensible. Sort of a bit like a thriller plot. Switching gears: I noticed again the extent to which my left eye processes bluer, so blue shifted, relative to my right eye processing red shifted. It’s a fairly decent gamut especially when they’re overlaid as Endpoints so the bip Between is the mix I actually see. I note I test out really well on color ID testing. That means I’m centered relative to the population’s variability and my abilities extend to the relative edges. I guess that explains my obsession with layers of the same color, including blacks: I love the interplay of similarities and how they can be ordered. (Added: may be a buffer issue in general, meaning a lower level delay issue that manifests in this spot. That’s obvious but I didn’t state it because I focused on patches.)
That raises a question about what is ‘white’ because there are reflected whites and radiant whites. The former disappears into the most reflective white, though that is contextual as well because the juncture with radiant is how reflection is treated, from matte to glossy, where glossy reflection becomes blinding light. This attacks a problem that’s always bothered me: the distinction between absorbed and radiated. Where do those relate? They have to connect because they’re both actual things about light: it is reflected and absorbed. What I just did is set up a Mudi, a multi-dimensional identity, that places absorption and radiation at S and E and matte and glossy at B1 and B2. These idealize to the corners of a square. The intersection of the hypotenuses defines the point where matte has reduced and glossy increased so that which is absorbed approaches that which is radiated. That ideal point is defined through the iterations inherent in the ideal square. Those add up!
One value of setting up a Mudi like this is that it creates an analytical path, an algorithm. Example is when you label these points, the ideal bip point has an axis along it, which I call zK, and along the zK are the Things, the various media or events that generate this value. These can be ordered using the same technique: Things that embody the ideal or Things that embody or describe the process by which the ideal is achieved. This enables layered orderings, a sort of taxonomy for any problem. It gets really fun when you count using different magnifications, because a magnification on this taxonomy, which I call the CMS lattice, is in powers of 10. This generates counts of clock time. These convert to seconds for an actual reason I’m writing up now.
Let’s go back to where I said glossy. I’m assuming an equivalence there Between glossiness and radiance, meaning I’m removing the visibility of the source from the analysis. When I take away the source, I can then set up a Mudi for radiance beyond the ideal point of the last Mudi, meaning I take the quadrant from bip to Endpoint Radiance and make it into an ideal square where the labels are radiance no to radiance yes. This Mudi extends past the bip to the original Endpoint of absorption where radiant is no longer visible. It extends past that Endpoint to radiance not measurably existing in another form, which is the zK of that no longer visible Endpoint treated as the ideal bip. But think of the Between of where radiance equals absorption to totally radiant, meaning as absorption continues but decreasing to where absorption is no longer visible, and then through the zK of that point to talk about the complete fading out of radiance. I’m typing this without editing, just as I think it.
These Mudi relate deeply to conceptions of God. Monotheism in the Jewish sense abstracts any and all names for God to a single name that can’t be said because each time you say it the name isn’t enough and you can’t say it often enough to make a dent in all the meanings so you don’t say it at all. It’s the intellectual labeling of the removal of the source attribution: this or that God didn’t cause this but rather ‘G-d’ or some symbol standing for ‘shrug of shoulders’ on one hand and ‘absolute awe’ on the other. At the opposite extreme, Hinduism represents all the names but not just as names but also as multi-dimensional identities which take on different meanings depending on the order in which they are summoned or invoked or counted in relation to other names.
The power of ritual and of incantation is they represent the organization of reality in relation to that which is not real. They literally represent the existence states of actual reality and the processes by which those existences occur in and over time. The Jewish process is that each chain or thread of questioning bounces off the name that can’t be named. The Hindu process involves you in the chains or threads of questioning. The Jewish process develops answers by continuously applying ‘what can’t be known’ to focus on ‘what can be known’. The Hindu process develops answers by continuously applying ‘what we know’ to define ‘what we can’t know’. The Mudi of Judaism and Hinduism is very deeply connected. It might appear Buddhism is more related but I’d describe them as more similar in the abstraction to a perfected existence. This draws the line over impossibility and off the idea of that name to categorization of your existence and actions. Christianity shares this relation. Islam not so much. Islam is more exactly like Judaism.
The title is a reference to Gerard Manley Hopkins poem The Windhover. It’s unique: ‘I caught this morning morning’s minion, king- / dom of daylight dawn’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding / Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding’ . The words tumble and rush. A favorite. Not a favorite poet but able in parts to reach a rare depth, even to the level of John Donne. I compare the simple observation of Donne saying ‘do not send to know for the whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee’ to this or perhaps to ‘Glory be to God for dappled things— / For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;’ . Both reach the same truth: though the bell tolls the age of the one who died, though we can breed a couple-colour cow, there is still meaning in it beyond whatever meaning we ascribe. I know why the sky is this color but I still find it beautiful. I’m reminded of the Springsteen lines: ‘to the ones who had a notion, a notion deep inside, that it ain’t no sin to be glad you’re alive’.
jomi: playing with perception 