Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:25, 6 December 2022

Welcome to the computing section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/C

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

November 28

Can a streaming radio broadcast be recorded to play back later?

The show I want to listen to is on twice a week, but one of the times is not a good time for me. I know a low-tech way to do it but it's complicated these days to find what I need for these low-tech solutions in stores.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer, if any, is going to be OS-dependent, browser-dependent, device-dependent, and also stream-dependent. We'll need to know various aspects of how it is accessed and what format it's transmitted in. Your success will be measured approximately by how much DRM is in the way, and whether it can legally be defeated or if you'll be liable under DMCA for time-shifting (remember when VCRs were controversial?) Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I didn't think about time-shifting being a problem.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the fact of timeshifting but it's the question of whether you have a license to

Record the stream for later usage
Decode the stream for said recording because a facility is not provided
Store and recreate the stream from its encoded format for later use

All of these actions may have implications under the DMCA and so software you pick up may not be cooperative with that, or you may have to pick it up in a dark alley using TOR. Elizium23 (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone, guys. Privately recording an on-line radio show is controversial and illegal? This calls for a shot of Scotch, if anything. Anyway, I just did a low-tech solution: fired up Audacity and recorded a short sample from my fave on-line station. Smooth as butter. To the OP: You most likely need to find some scheduling app to start up some recording script at a prescribed time and fiddle around a bit with it. Or ask a friend. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It "should not" be illegal, but content providers can put enough DRM and obfuscation in the stream to make your life difficult, and if you propose to do this at scale, or commercially, rather than for personal one-off reasons, you want to be aware that DMCA is in play. If Vchimpanzee is just doing this for personal reasons then they only need to worry about running the gauntlet. Elizium23 (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Polish. We're genetically inclined to break these kind of dumb rules out of spite. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I'm sure no one would have had a problem with the low-tech solution.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under U.S. law, recording broadcasts for purely private use is generally seen as allowable; see Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., later cases such as A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. and MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. have attempted to introduce the sort of nuance to the practice that the digital age has brought in. IANAL, but in general, it is still usually held that a single person recording a broadcast for their own personal use is not illegal, though attempts to share the recorded material with others is where the line gets drawn. HOWEVER, as noted, this does not involve the intricacies of contract law and how Digital rights management is often handled in the modern digital age; depending on how the stream and/or how the service you used to access the stream has worded its EULA, use of the digital media may contractually forbid the end user from making digital copies of the media in question. Or maybe not. Caveat streamor and all that. --Jayron 32 17:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat streamor it is then :) well worded. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to play the stream using VLC media player? Then you can record the stream using that. You can use the Convert/Save option in the menu.

If you want to start the recording automatically, that's also possible. You would have to look up the command line options and use a task scheduler.

Sorry for keeping the answer so vague, but you haven't provided many details on what you want to do. Hopefully it gives you enough to start working on this. Otherwise, please provide more details on what you want to do (which radio station, which operating system, how do you want to start the recording etc.) and it would be possible to give more specific advice. El sjaako (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

On the page URL shortening, what is meant by "as the service delivery time increases, the length of the URL will also increase"?

There's an example given, but the example is just a shortening of the URL for the history of the article. I can't see what it's driving at. Card Zero (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, it makes no sense; I've removed the paragraph. Thanks for spotting it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the history of that diff is stranger than fiction! Elizium23 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's very poorly worded that's for sure and should be removed without a citation but I think what it's referring to is that any URL shortening service is eventually (theoretically at least) going to run out of codes of a certain length based on whatever charset they are using. They could increase the character set eg of it's alphanumeric but lower case only they could potentially add upper case provided they enforced case sensitivity at the beginning (if they didn't then it's quite likely they will break many existing links) or add symbols. But eventually even that will run out, especially since while emojis and other characters e.g. CJK are an option they probably interfere with usability too much to be worth it. Even symbols might be seen the same. So either the service needs to be shut down for new links, add a new different URL (effectively changing one character in the part which did not change previously), or add an extra character. As a practical matter, even case insensitive alphanumeric can quickly get very large, so depending on the starting length it may be that this limit is never ran into. From Wikipedia:URLShortener, I gather the Wikimedia URL shortener service started at 1 and perhaps just keeps increasing as needed (alternatively few characters requires some special permission and is reserved for especially important URLs) and was up to 4 at the time the Q28 added that detail but may or may not eventually hit 5 characters. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't necessarily so. Links could expire on a timed basis, be reaped when they go 404, deleted manually by the owners. There are ways to recycle the namespace. Also, if the length is chosen wisely to begin with, the universe will die off before the link shortener does. YouTube has kabillions of videos and their URL scheme hasn't been lengthened. Elizium23 (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While timed links are a possibility, most services are based on the assumption the short URL basically lasts as long as the service lasts. Unless the links are timed, recycling intentionally isn't practiced and definitely generally isn't introduced later since as with case-sensitivity, introducing such a change mid way is a terrible idea as it breaks existing links when people did not expect it to. For starters, there is no way to be sure a link is permadead since even if the domain has been taken over by a hijacker, it's always possible in 10 years time, someone may recover the domain either by paying the hijacker or because the hijacker has given up, and reintroduce the service. And putting that aside, some people want to know what the URL was even if it's dead e.g. to look for it on a web archive. They don't want to wonder why granny sent them a porno link 10 years ago when in reality she sent them a link to some Catholic website it's just that the shortened URL was re-used. (Some people may get confused by redirections from dead URLs but people who know what they're doing can figure out where the URL pointed to and therefore whether granny really sent them a porno link 10 years ago.) Of course, a service could have a way to check a shortened URL's history or at least when the current redirection was added, but ultimately the point is that people generally expect a shorted URL to just work even if it's been a long time, and if they do end up somewhere odd, it's on the destination end not the shortened end. In other words, if I click on a URL even a very long time, it will still take me to wherever the person was trying to send me to, even if that URL may be dead or may redirect me perhaps semi transparently. The most you generally expect to happen beyond the service just dying itself, is that the redirection may be disabled for security or ToS reasons in which case you may not know what the URL pointed to, but at least it doesn't seem like granny sent you a porno link due to the destination URL suddenly changing. Note in any case, recycling only prevents the problem completely if your rate of recycling is higher than new links. If it isn't, the problem may be delayed but will still occur at least theoretically, although as I said in my first reply depending on the rates involved it may or may not be a practical concern. (Sorry if I didn't make this clear but by theoretical I meant if we put aside other theoretical considerations like whether the internet in its current form let alone the universe will last that long and by practical I meant if we do introduce such considerations.) As for "wisely" the problem here is that there is an inherent contradiction between a URL shortening and choosing a long length. The youtu.be service chose to just keep the entirety of the video ID even if 11 characters means it's fairly long so you generally only reduce the length by half, but for services without such obvious reasons to chose such a long URL for your URL shortening, many do not chose such a long length instead often limiting it to 4 or 5 characters, in which case such concerns may move out of the realm of theory at some stage. Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"As the service delivery time increases, the length of the finger will also increase" this just sounds like Google Translate screwing up. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the example "https://w.wiki/4ozb" (now removed), the path ("4ozb") consists of four characters. Assuming that only the 10 digits and the 26 lower-case letters are used, there are merely 1679616 four-character combinations. Assuming the host remains the same and all shortened URLs are unique, by the 1679617th time a shortened URL is requested, the service must return a longer path. When all five-character combinations are used up, it will have to start using six-character paths, and so on. --Lambiam 18:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes the assumption that the URL is somehow encrypted, doesn't it? I wrote a URL shortener for an organization a while back. I used a hash table. So, I took a URL of any arbitrary length and I produced a 6-character code that could be used within the organization to access the original page. The hash table was resident on the local DNS and it converted internal requests to the proper URL. The point is that a 1 character URL (I know that doesn't exist) and a 255 character URL would both be converted to 6 characters. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not use that assumption. The only assumptions are those explicitly stated. You cannot form 1679617 different four-character words using an alphabet with 36 characters. --Lambiam 22:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you assumed incorrectly, because Wikimedia's URL shortener uses capital letters as well. That gives a space of 62 characters: 14,776,336 permutations in a 4-character URL.

I want to raise another issue that's very important: even if the length of the shortened URL grows as the service accumulates more redirects, its growth will decelerate markedly (logarithmically?) every time it grows, because the namespace grows vastly. So it's easy to rightsize a shortened URL; you start small - say 4 positions of 62 characters each, and then you add a position when you exhaust the namespace, and with 5 positions you have 916 million slots, then 56.8 billion, and then you can bide your time before you expand the URL beyond 6 positions. QED. Elizium23 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The (now deleted) statement in the article about the length of the URL increasing with the service delivery time was about URL shortening services in general, not specifically Wikimedia's URL shortener. And so was my comment. If the alphabet is finite, the length of the paths will keep growing as the number of uniquely assigned paths grows unboundedly. --Lambiam 10:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But each character added to an a hash increases that hash's namespace exponentially. It is absurd for you to say that the number of uniquely assigned paths would grow "unboundedly" because we're on the finite Internet, and URL shortening services are a dime a dozen, competing with each other and restricted to various specialties. Can you say with a straight face that a normal shortening service, much less Wikimedia, barring malice or incompetence, will require more than 56.8 billion slots for URLs in the next 100 years? Elizium23 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's finite and then there's "finite". Being finite is not the same as being exhaustible. It doesn't take very many more digits to (for example) have a finite number of possibilities which is large enough to be actually inexhaustible, given that the universe has only so many atoms. It is a well known bit of trivia that every well-shuffled deck of cards is expected to be a truly unique ordering; given that there are 8E67 possible decks of cards, while a finite number it's just stupid to think that you're going to hit the same ordering twice given that, even if it takes only 60 seconds to shuffle such a deck, that's still more minutes than has existed since the big bang. Heck, it's more atoms than there are in the observable universe. Similarly, it's rather trivial to create, with nothing more than the standard character set of the English QWERTY keyboard, a relatively small string of characters which is functionally inexhaustible, even on the "age of the known universe" time scale. --Jayron 32 14:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase that captures this phenomenon is "combinatorial explosion," and it's a phrase I use often, adding only a subtly-different explanatory suffix each time.

Nimur (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Microsoft Windows fonts

I noticed that some fonts have "W01" in the name, other fonts have "W03" and "W05". What does it mean? 2001:B07:6442:8903:D58A:6781:43DD:81FE (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a standard notation for web fonts. See this chart of W indicators. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linux CLI Graphing Tool

Many years ago, I believe it was on Slackware, but may have been when I first started using Redhat, I used a program in Linux that took a text file and produced an SVG. The text file contained edge definitions like A->B and A->C. It would read in those definitions and produce a graph image (svg). It was command line. I wasn't using X at the time. I just added them into a latex file that I was rendering to PDF and opening on another computer. I've been searching and I can't figure out what that program was and if it still exists. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Graphviz. There are some examples, including the input text files, at this page. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The general topic is graph drawing; if Graphviz isn't what you're looking for, there's a list of other programs in that article which may help. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 23:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

Building a website with the help of Visual Studio

I have an urgent need to build a website. I've never done it before. My goal is not commerce, but rather propagating simple ideas. After some browsing I realized that there are many options out there. It turns out I can use the MS Visual Studio. I am very familiar with this application, spending years coding in C# and C++. So, I am trying to use the Studio. I have a rather difficult starting period. A lot of terminology is new to me. So far I've declared a WebApplication1 as a windows forms application. What is the power coding? Is it needed? Where shall I go from here? I will appreciate any healthy suggestions.

Thanks AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're building a website you do not need to use Visual Studio C#. Try using VSCode instead and start with HTML5/Javascript. What you're doing is way too heavy for the requirements. A minimal website can be written in HTML as follows:

<html><head><title>Hello world</title></head><body>Hello world</body></html>

Andre🚐 21:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a hosting service? Many offer support for one or several content management systems, such as WordPress. Users can get a website up and running without installing anything on their own computers, not having to code a single line. --Lambiam 23:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is a VSCode? I don't have a "hosting service." I do have a domain it is hosted at GoDaddy. As I said, I am a beginner in web coding. Just trying to learn first steps as soon as possible. AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to write? Web server code or the content? How do you plan to host the content? You'll either need a hosting service or you'll need to admin your own machine in a data center, such as a VPS... perhaps it would be helpful if you told us more details about your urgent need and the resources you've mustered. Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reference desk is a poor replacement to do basic Googling and reading of documentation. I recommend that you download VSCode because it's another product in the Visual Studio line that is more catered to basic web development versus building a GUI desktop application or web server software that interacts with a database. It sounds like the first step you need to learn is what a web site actually is. Andre🚐 20:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I published a book on Amazon back in August. It is not a fiction book. I don't want to disclose its title because it will create an impression that I use the Wikipedia for advertising. The book is filled with what I consider new ideas. I need a website to arrange a discussion and perhaps propagate some of the ideas. It is as simple as that. I don't have any idea how successful this book on the marketplace is, but will try to find out this coming week. I am fluent in a number of computer languages but they are all useless for my task. I've never had a direct need to do what I will try to do now. I tried to hire web designers but got disappointed and decided to do it myself. I appreciate your help. Many thanks 107.191.1.90 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try something like Neocities or a free wordpress for starters. Andre🚐 23:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

64-bit computing

It can hold up to 1.8×10^19 different values. I don't understand why that huge number translates to only around 450 gigabytes on my hard drive? Shouldn't my disk drive able to hold much more bytes? I'm not too familiar in computer hardware, so this may sound like a dumb question. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:FCB3:FE0F:795:3BC9 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My second question is how come 64 bit computer only have 8 GB in RAM? That seems way too low compared to the big number above. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:FCB3:FE0F:795:3BC9 (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "64 bits" in this case means that the computer is capable of efficiently working with 64-bit values.

There are a couple of key words in there:

"Capable" - the computer can handle 64 bits at a time - but that doesn't mean it always does handle 64-bits at a time!

"Efficient" - most computers can handle any number of bits. But, a "64-bit computer" can do this efficiently (compared to, say, a 32-bit system).

This is all a bit wishy-washy: the reality is that the details are really quite complicated. Modern computer architectures sometimes use different bit-sizes for different parts of the system; some of the math hardware might be 64-bits wide; some of the memory interfaces might be 128-bits wide; some of the peripheral data might even be going over wires that are essentially 8-bit or even one-bit wide!

One of my favorite computer books is Patt and Patel's Introduction to Computing Systems. If you're at the level of knowing how to do binary math, but not really knowing how that math affects the capabilities of a real-world computer, this book is a great way to connect the concepts together, and really get into the nitty-gritty of what every part of the phrase "64-bit computer" means, one word at a time.

Nimur (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Literature about improvements on large neural networks that try to do more with the same number of parameters

I not too deep in ML , but I read articles every now and then (especially about hyped models, GPT and co). I see that there is progress on some amazing things (like GPT-3.5) also because their NN gets bigger and bigger.

My question is: are there studies that check that NN could do more (are more precise or whatever) given the same amount of parameters? In other words, is it a race in making NN as large as possible (given that they are structured appropriately) or is the "utility" per parameter also growing? I would like to know if there is literature about it. It is a bit like an optimization question. "Do more with the same HW" (or parameters) so to speak. Pier4r (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 :::::But each character added to an a hash increases that hash's namespace exponentially. It is absurd for you to say that the number of uniquely assigned paths would grow "unboundedly" because we're on the finite Internet, and URL shortening services are a dime a dozen, competing with each other and restricted to various specialties. Can you say with a straight face that a normal shortening service, much less Wikimedia, barring malice or incompetence, will require more than 56.8 billion slots for URLs in the next 100 years? [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 13:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 :::::There's finite and then there's "finite".  Being finite is not the same as being exhaustible.  It doesn't take very many more digits to (for example) have a finite number of possibilities which is large enough to be ''actually inexhaustible'', given that the universe has only so many atoms.  It is a well known bit of trivia that every well-shuffled deck of cards is expected to be a truly unique ordering; given that there are 8E67 possible decks of cards, while a finite number it's just stupid to think that you're going to hit the same ordering twice given that, even if it takes only 60 seconds to shuffle such a deck, that's still more minutes than has existed since the big bang.  Heck, it's more atoms than there are in the observable universe.  Similarly, it's rather trivial to create, with nothing more than the standard character set of the English QWERTY keyboard, a relatively small string of characters which is functionally inexhaustible, even on the "age of the known universe" time scale.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 14:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
+::::::The phrase that captures this phenomenon is "[[combinatorial explosion]]," and it's a phrase I use often, adding only a subtly-different explanatory suffix each time.
+::::::[[User:Nimur|Nimur]] ([[User talk:Nimur|talk]]) 01:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 == Question about Microsoft Windows fonts ==