I was about to argue with "Old timey", but yeah, I guess any band that has existed for over 40 years is old timey. I've been a fan since '96. I guess we're all old now.
The late 90s was the first time I'd heard of them. I was a university student at the time, and one of my friends was a foreign student, from America, and a fan. He also liked this other band called The Grateful Dead. I'd never heard of them either. They sucked too.
(Though, that said: many years later - i.e., quite recently - I listened to a bunch of their stuff on YouTube, while thinking back to my student days. And, actually, some of it is pretty good. At least, it was when they had pigpen singing.)
It explicitly says "the band". All the context in the first paragraphs is about the music. It absolutely clarifies. The rest of the article talks about listening to the music, watching them (or wanting to watch them) in concert or in tour.
Read the article. Or just look at the top search result for Phish. Stop being lazy.
Please don’t use ad hominem on HN. I did read the article and it wasn’t clear at all, as you can see others also faced that situation. You don’t have to engage if you think we are lazy. The aggressive tone is completely unwarranted for such a casual discussion
The top search results for "Phish" and "Down with Disease" show Phish the band. There is no ad hominem - writing a comment asking someone else to answer that question for you without doing that basic step is lazy.
The article says "Phish is a band". Verbatim. It talks about Phish and listening to music in every paragraph.
If people read this article and didn't get that, perhaps I should stop dismissing the news articles talking about the state of education and attention spans as hyperbole.
> I’d need to ask the interviewer to put Phish on....I could not, with any reliability, get into the zone without the music.
> All I ever wanted to do was listen to Phish and program
> I heard Phish for the first time at thirteen.
> Phish is a band that rewards you for staying in one place for a long time. The jams are long. The compositions unfold.
> The band would play in Hampton or Alpine Valley or wherever
> I have listened to Phish every day since I was fifteen...I have listened to certain shows so many times that I can sing the solos back, note by note,
> I tried to keep the music on. I’m writing this in the days after nine nights of Phish at the Sphere. Since I finished grad school and got a real job, I’ve gone to every show I could, every tour, every residency, making up for lost time. The music is more present in my life now than it has ever been. It isn’t what’s gone
I don't care if English is your first language - if anyone read the article they make the point that it is a band over and over and over. Explicitly.
I re read that paragraph a few times hoping that I missed something. Then gave up and went on to find the answer in comments. I thought the author was describing some feeling, or maybe some action. That "that to me" isn't clear with "that".
Quantum correction algorithms (that would allow factoring of thousands of digits) begin to work when the gate fidelity and other parameters are above certain threshold.
This is what bugs me about both quantum computers and commercial fusion power. There's so much talk about how it's just inevitable and will happen soonish, but a lot of the evidence suggests, in some cases strongly, that it might not ever be possible.
I find it weird how bleeding edge research, at the very edges of both physics and engineering, is treated as though it's a market development about to drop. Possibly a consequence of pure R&D having all but died? Getting funded requires pretending there's a business plan for what you're working on?
There's no strong evidence of impossibility. For quantum computers to be impossible at scale we need new unknown physics. Fusion requires lots of engineering. And before those engineering efforts would show practical impossibility or impracticality, there can't be strong evidence.
For quantum computers, the situation is quite similar. Michel Dyakonov and several others have laid out the situation well.
At least we don't have anyone claiming that interstellar travel is just 10 years away, yet. Probably because it's more difficult to make an economic case for it. But the issues are quite similar. In principle, in terms of physics, nothing prevents an interstellar journey. In practice, it just isn't going to happen.
Yes. Even with the ludicrous subsidies and support from governments, ICEs are a nightmare to feed and maintain. (And inefficient and massively polluting.)
You mean like converting packet timestamps into a (uniformly) sampled time series (e.g., bytes or packets per ms) and run a NumPy/SciPy FFT on that series?
Something like Lomb–Scargle would possibly be a better fit I suppose. But yes that sort of flow, I could do it as a one off with a Python script as you state, but my interest is more if anyone has sunk their teeth into network packet analysis in the frequency domain from the ground up and wrapped up all the learnings into a thoughtfully designed interface.
I was searching for a Wireshark type plugin to do this but I couldn’t find anything.
Alternatively, equally useful would be learning about anyone who has started to do something like this and then realized that it didn’t actually help them analyze anything.
Jake VanderPlas also has an article on Understanding the Lomb-Scargle Periodogram [1] which I can recommend if you want to get into the details (it also includes a treatment of fourier-pairs + convolution to explain the 'artifacts' in DFT). There's a module for it in scipy, so it should be rather straightforward to try your analysis using timestamps for x and an array of ones for y. That algorithm is essentially a least-squares fit with sinusoids at pre-selected frequencies.
I've tried to use Lomb-Scargle to reduce the number of sampling points in magnetic resonance experiments, but had another dimension to take into account (similar to doing the analysis for each network port separately in your case). I got some spikes on some of the 'ports' which I couldn't reason about or reproduce when I did the same with periodic sampling and FFT. But the individual periodograms looked reasonable, if I remember correctly. Maybe we have a more regular user of LS around, who can point out common pitfalls. Otherwise you could generate some data from known frequencies to see what kind of artifacts you get.
You could maybe also take a look at the auto-correlation of the packet timestamps to see whether you can extract timescales on which patterns arise.
reply