5 ms·
They were off by a factor of 10 with the likelihood of being struck and killed by lightning, according to the nws website. To clarify: the likelihood of being
by godson_drafty 10y ago
They were off by a factor of 10 with the likelihood of being struck and killed by lightning, according to the nws website.
To clarify: the likelihood of being merely struck by lightning is ~ 1/1,000,000 per year. The likelihood of being struck and killed is 1/10,000,000 , or about 1/2^23.25
Given this, you would only have to be struck and killed by lightning 6.8 years in a row to equal a sha1 hash collision probability.
- lutorm 10y agoI'm not sure those events are independent... ;-)
- peff 10y agoOh, you're right. I misread the chart (and just fixed the blog post). There are a lot of other caveats, too. Such as the idea of each year being an independent probability.
- OJFord 10y ago> Given this, you would only have to be struck and killed > by lightning 6.8 years in a row to equal a sha1 hash > collision probability. Oh, well that changes everything! ;)
- cakoose 10y agoMore importantly, the comparison is useless. The odds of running into issues with SHA-1 collisions in Git is a very different question from just the odds of two random SHA-1 hashes colliding.
- arcatek 10y agoDoesn't the birthday paradox make it much more likely to eventually occur ?
- alkonaut 10y agoI think the probability of being killed by lightning even two years in a row is already zero.
- godson_drafty 10y agoThe situational comparison originally used by Linus for a sha1 collision was all the members of your development team being killed and eaten by wolves. I'm not sure if he gave a time-frame that would need to occur in.