17 ms·

> Server load balancing is a dynamic process which may actually induces vulnerabilities to distributed denial of service attacks, whether or not the maintenance

by Pyxl101 11y ago

> Server load balancing is a dynamic process which may actually induces vulnerabilities to distributed denial of service attacks, whether or not the maintenance occurs regularly. Especially dangerous DDoS is statistically timed to gain root access by damaging the infrastructure. I understand the topics that the words are referring to. The sentences seem like garbage that almost makes sense, but in the end doesn't. Presumably phrases or sentence fragments written by real humans but strung together in a nonsense way. One giveaway here is the phrase "whether or not the maintenance occurs regularly". What maintenance? There is no "the maintenance" in this paragraph, and maintenance has no connection to the sentence or topic. It's clever though and sophisticated enough to make you doubt yourself for a moment. I think it's both human and machine working together. This comment is too on topic to be random: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058574 I'm almost enjoying it as a kind of puzzle. Pretty sure it's some kind of performance art or trolling, so I've flagged it. I'm inclined to follow Poe's Law on this one ("Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook") Edit: The user's subsequent replies distinguish their contribution as mean-spirited trolling.

plumeria 11y ago
Could it be some sort of Turing test inspired trolling?
- williamjennings 11y ago
  As of yet, you are the only user to have made a remotely intelligent response.
williamjennings 11y ago
>I understand the topics that the words are referring to. This is an incomplete sentence. The correct phrase would be: "I understand the topics to which the words are referring" >The sentences seem like garbage that almost makes sense, but in the end doesn't. This is a Freudian slip where you are actually talking about your own sentences. Since when does garbage make sense? I hazard a guess that you are heavily invested in recycling content! >Presumably phrases or sentence fragments written by real humans but strung together in a nonsense way. This is another sentence fragment which is solely a predicate, lacking a subject. There is only one language in the world where that is valid grammar; and it is also the only one in which: being able to do the work of several humans- is an insult rather than a compliment. A moronic RUSE uses derogatives subjectively and assumes everyone else must agree. >It's clever though and sophisticated enough to make you doubt yourself for a moment. If you could veritably speculate on what type of computation was ongoing, then you too could be clever and sophisticated. Instead, you are simply being a dull sophist. >I think it's both human and machine working together. Correct! I am indeed using a computer, and so are you. >This comment is too on topic to be random: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058574 I'm almost enjoying it as a kind of puzzle. If this is some kind of algorithmic puzzle, then I am technically a 'wizard'; and you can only progress by asking questions to inform your own ignorance. >Pretty sure it's some kind of performance art or trolling, so I've flagged it. Another grammatical error! If you cannot think of a question to ask, or a related topic to discuss, then you are most likely the troll (or performance artist). >I'd argue that it's indecipherably dense and not appropriate for HN. I can now argue that in fact that you are indecipherably dense and HN is not appropriate for VC funding.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  Your original posts were clever and almost fun (still inappropriate for HN), but this is neither. Please stop.
  - williamjennings 11y ago
    If you had not written to me in a malicious manner, then I would not be making jokes at your expense. I am using my sense of humor to prove my humanity, because your pejoratives are terribly mean-spirited trolling.
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    I dunno, man. I think you deserved the wall of text.
    - williamjennings 11y ago
      Thank you for being a voice of reason.
williamjennings 11y ago
>One giveaway here is the phrase "whether or not the maintenance occurs regularly". What maintenance? There is no "the maintenance" in this paragraph, and maintenance has no connection to the sentence or topic. Good job! You almost asked a question. This google search might help you in your quest to define the word 'maintenance': https://www.google.com/#q=server+maintenance+load+balancing https://www.google.com/#q=server+maintenance+load+balancing
williamjennings 11y ago
>Edit: The user's subsequent replies distinguish their contribution as mean-spirited trolling. You should have recorded each edit. This is another Freudian slip about your own mean-spirited trolling.
anonbanker 11y ago
And shame on you for saying (in an edit, no less) that this man is not a bot, but merely a troll. Address his original post, or comment on something you are qualified on. Flagged post accordingly.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  Are you prepared to explain this content and defend its meaning and sensibility? Please do not argue that I'm being unfair unless you are. If you think it makes sense, and I'm misreading, then I'd challenge you to pick a paragraph, dig into each sentence, and try to explain to yourself what it means; and how the sum of the sentences in the paragraph communicates an idea. It doesn't. It's just a string of generated statements. If you haven't seen this kind of material before, then I'd encourage you to check out papers generated by SciGen: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf (generated nonsense intended to fool the reader - it was even accepted by a journal for publication!) You will probably be able to identify this content for what it is after reading other (well-done) machine-generated content. I'm qualified to comment on the content. The paragraphs do not make sense. You're being taken in by a troll. If anyone wants to seriously discuss this content, start by trying to understanding how "load balancing [...] may actually induces [sic] vulnerabilities to DDOS", and how that connects in any way to the topic which is cryptography. > Irreversible destruction of the hardware [...] atomic decay processes which are incited by zeta normalization of the attack timing. When is "destruction of the hardware" ever reversible? How will an Internet attack incite atomic decay? (That's ridiculous.) The words and phrases are strung together in a way that communicates no cogent idea. They're far enough away from making real sense that they can't actually be rebutted or discussed in a direct way. All you're left with being able to say is, "That doesn't make sense", "Those concepts have nothing to do with each other", "The ideas don't follow". Try to take the paper I linked above and, selecting any paragraph, attempt to assess the accuracy of its claims, discuss what it's saying, or rebut the claims. Example: > Any unproven synthesis of introspective methodologies will clearly require that the well-known reliable algorithm for the investigation of randomized algorithms by Zheng is in Co-NP; our application is no different Does that look like obvious nonsense to you? It's written in a way to appear meaningful but it's not. It's just randomly generated content using statistical techniques to select words and phrases that appear nearby in a corpus of real content. Nevertheless I'm sure you can pull some kind of meaning out of that and argue about it. That's what we'd be doing by discussing this user's posts. I'm not trying to be mean. I thought the original posts were an interesting, clever performance with better generated material than I'd seen before. That's misleading in the way that a magician is misleading. It can be fun. The subsequent replies appearing to seriously defend the content (which by the way are not at all convincing), and attack users who pointed out its nature, are something different. I really don't want to contribute to trolling on HN by discussing this content further, but since you're accusing me of being unfairly dismissive: I will be glad to read and critique a short essay about how "load balancing [...] may actually induces [sic] vulnerabilities to DDOS [...] whether or not the maintenance occurs regularly" and how that relates to cryptography. All I can say now is that that claim doesn't make sense on its own, or the context of the paragraph, and has no apparent connection to the topic. If the sentence was expanded into several paragraphs justifying its claims and elucidating the topic, then we'd actually be able to discuss it.

by Pyxl101 11y ago

plumeria 11y ago

Could it be some sort of Turing test inspired trolling?

williamjennings 11y ago
As of yet, you are the only user to have made a remotely intelligent response.

williamjennings 11y ago

>I understand the topics that the words are referring to. This is an incomplete sentence. The correct phrase would be: "I understand the topics to which the words are referring" >The sentences seem like garbage that almost makes sense, but in the end doesn't. This is a Freudian slip where you are actually talking about your own sentences. Since when does garbage make sense? I hazard a guess that you are heavily invested in recycling content! >Presumably phrases or sentence fragments written by real humans but strung together in a nonsense way. This is another sentence fragment which is solely a predicate, lacking a subject. There is only one language in the world where that is valid grammar; and it is also the only one in which: being able to do the work of several humans- is an insult rather than a compliment. A moronic RUSE uses derogatives subjectively and assumes everyone else must agree. >It's clever though and sophisticated enough to make you doubt yourself for a moment. If you could veritably speculate on what type of computation was ongoing, then you too could be clever and sophisticated. Instead, you are simply being a dull sophist. >I think it's both human and machine working together. Correct! I am indeed using a computer, and so are you. >This comment is too on topic to be random: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058574 I'm almost enjoying it as a kind of puzzle. If this is some kind of algorithmic puzzle, then I am technically a 'wizard'; and you can only progress by asking questions to inform your own ignorance. >Pretty sure it's some kind of performance art or trolling, so I've flagged it. Another grammatical error! If you cannot think of a question to ask, or a related topic to discuss, then you are most likely the troll (or performance artist). >I'd argue that it's indecipherably dense and not appropriate for HN. I can now argue that in fact that you are indecipherably dense and HN is not appropriate for VC funding.

Pyxl101 11y ago
Your original posts were clever and almost fun (still inappropriate for HN), but this is neither. Please stop.
- williamjennings 11y ago
  If you had not written to me in a malicious manner, then I would not be making jokes at your expense. I am using my sense of humor to prove my humanity, because your pejoratives are terribly mean-spirited trolling.
- anonbanker 11y ago
  I dunno, man. I think you deserved the wall of text.
  - williamjennings 11y ago
    Thank you for being a voice of reason.

williamjennings 11y ago

>One giveaway here is the phrase "whether or not the maintenance occurs regularly". What maintenance? There is no "the maintenance" in this paragraph, and maintenance has no connection to the sentence or topic. Good job! You almost asked a question. This google search might help you in your quest to define the word 'maintenance': https://www.google.com/#q=server+maintenance+load+balancing https://www.google.com/#q=server+maintenance+load+balancing

williamjennings 11y ago

>Edit: The user's subsequent replies distinguish their contribution as mean-spirited trolling. You should have recorded each edit. This is another Freudian slip about your own mean-spirited trolling.

anonbanker 11y ago

And shame on you for saying (in an edit, no less) that this man is not a bot, but merely a troll. Address his original post, or comment on something you are qualified on. Flagged post accordingly.

Pyxl101 11y ago
Are you prepared to explain this content and defend its meaning and sensibility? Please do not argue that I'm being unfair unless you are. If you think it makes sense, and I'm misreading, then I'd challenge you to pick a paragraph, dig into each sentence, and try to explain to yourself what it means; and how the sum of the sentences in the paragraph communicates an idea. It doesn't. It's just a string of generated statements. If you haven't seen this kind of material before, then I'd encourage you to check out papers generated by SciGen: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf (generated nonsense intended to fool the reader - it was even accepted by a journal for publication!) You will probably be able to identify this content for what it is after reading other (well-done) machine-generated content. I'm qualified to comment on the content. The paragraphs do not make sense. You're being taken in by a troll. If anyone wants to seriously discuss this content, start by trying to understanding how "load balancing [...] may actually induces [sic] vulnerabilities to DDOS", and how that connects in any way to the topic which is cryptography. > Irreversible destruction of the hardware [...] atomic decay processes which are incited by zeta normalization of the attack timing. When is "destruction of the hardware" ever reversible? How will an Internet attack incite atomic decay? (That's ridiculous.) The words and phrases are strung together in a way that communicates no cogent idea. They're far enough away from making real sense that they can't actually be rebutted or discussed in a direct way. All you're left with being able to say is, "That doesn't make sense", "Those concepts have nothing to do with each other", "The ideas don't follow". Try to take the paper I linked above and, selecting any paragraph, attempt to assess the accuracy of its claims, discuss what it's saying, or rebut the claims. Example: > Any unproven synthesis of introspective methodologies will clearly require that the well-known reliable algorithm for the investigation of randomized algorithms by Zheng is in Co-NP; our application is no different Does that look like obvious nonsense to you? It's written in a way to appear meaningful but it's not. It's just randomly generated content using statistical techniques to select words and phrases that appear nearby in a corpus of real content. Nevertheless I'm sure you can pull some kind of meaning out of that and argue about it. That's what we'd be doing by discussing this user's posts. I'm not trying to be mean. I thought the original posts were an interesting, clever performance with better generated material than I'd seen before. That's misleading in the way that a magician is misleading. It can be fun. The subsequent replies appearing to seriously defend the content (which by the way are not at all convincing), and attack users who pointed out its nature, are something different. I really don't want to contribute to trolling on HN by discussing this content further, but since you're accusing me of being unfairly dismissive: I will be glad to read and critique a short essay about how "load balancing [...] may actually induces [sic] vulnerabilities to DDOS [...] whether or not the maintenance occurs regularly" and how that relates to cryptography. All I can say now is that that claim doesn't make sense on its own, or the context of the paragraph, and has no apparent connection to the topic. If the sentence was expanded into several paragraphs justifying its claims and elucidating the topic, then we'd actually be able to discuss it.