<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../assets/xml/rss.xsl" media="all"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Mikhail Kyraha (Posts about math)</title><link>https://mikhail.kyraha.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://mikhail.kyraha.com/categories/math.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><language>en</language><copyright>Copyright © 2023 &lt;a href="https://mikhail.kyraha.com/"&gt;Mikhail Kyraha&lt;/a&gt; </copyright><lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Nov 2023 04:54:27 GMT</lastBuildDate><generator>Nikola (getnikola.com)</generator><docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs><item><title>Guess text encoding with scalar product</title><link>https://mikhail.kyraha.com/posts/2012/guess-text-encoding-with-scalar-product.html</link><dc:creator>Mikhail Kyraha</dc:creator><description>&lt;div&gt;&lt;p&gt;Playing with an 8-bit to multibyte text converter recently I came across
with a rather interesting problem. The converter is intended to help
with converting legacy text data encoded with older monobyte character
encodings into UTF-8. Yes, the converting process itself is not a big
deal. In fact it's a very basic and straightforward program a student
would usually challenge him- or herself just after they accomplished the
"Hello World!" one. However, the interesting part here is the fact that
that "old encoding" can be one of a bunch of variants of slightly
different ad hoc character sets. And to make things worse, the user
doesn't usually know which code page exactly the original text was
encoded with. And as always the user is reluctant to make any effort to
find it out before using the tool. Where such ad hoc code pages came
from and why they been used at all is a whole different story but it's
not the point here. The point is how having only a piece of plain text
to determine which code page it is encoded with. So...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://mikhail.kyraha.com/posts/2012/guess-text-encoding-with-scalar-product.html"&gt;Read more…&lt;/a&gt; (6 min remaining to read)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>math</category><category>sakha</category><category>technology</category><guid>https://mikhail.kyraha.com/posts/2012/guess-text-encoding-with-scalar-product.html</guid><pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Paypal Payment vs. Micropayment comparison</title><link>https://mikhail.kyraha.com/posts/2012/paypal-payment-vs-micropayment.html</link><dc:creator>Mikhail Kyraha</dc:creator><description>&lt;div&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you sell stuff online and receive payments using Paypal you probably
already know that you have two options for the payment fee with Paypal.
One is the standard 2.9% commission + ¢30 transaction fee. The other is
so called Micropayment Discount or 5% + ¢5 per transaction. The latter,
as Paypal says, is better if your typical sales are less than $10. But
how much better and what is typical? - are the questions that neither
Paypal nor anybody else can answer for you. Here is a simple graph
showing the total percentage you'd pay to Paypal from your merchant
profit depending on the transaction amount. The graph is to help you
understand your odds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Fees graph over transaction size" src="https://mikhail.kyraha.com/images/Paypal-fee-estimate.png"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Below is my humble "analysis".&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://mikhail.kyraha.com/posts/2012/paypal-payment-vs-micropayment.html"&gt;Read more…&lt;/a&gt; (1 min remaining to read)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>math</category><category>money</category><category>web</category><guid>https://mikhail.kyraha.com/posts/2012/paypal-payment-vs-micropayment.html</guid><pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:56:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Google+ circles</title><link>https://mikhail.kyraha.com/posts/2011/google-circles.html</link><dc:creator>Mikhail Kyraha</dc:creator><description>&lt;div&gt;&lt;p&gt;OK, as far as I could find so far the major, if not the only, advantage
Google+ have against Facebook is their circles concept. But I'm still a
little confused what would be the right way to use them. The circles are
great, I agree, they prop your networking up into multidimensional
space. However in my opinion it's still a half-way solution. And here is
why I think so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://mikhail.kyraha.com/posts/2011/google-circles.html"&gt;Read more…&lt;/a&gt; (2 min remaining to read)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>math</category><category>technology</category><category>web</category><guid>https://mikhail.kyraha.com/posts/2011/google-circles.html</guid><pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:25:00 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>