5 ms·
You are extremely hostile and unhelpful in this discussion. If you want to drag discourse down there are a lot of other forums where one line replies signaling
by zeth___ 9y ago
You are extremely hostile and unhelpful in this discussion.
If you want to drag discourse down there are a lot of other forums where one line replies signaling you know something profound without actually saying anything are acceptable.
HN is not one of these.
- Tomte 9y agoYou should simply read the essay and educate yourself. Obviously you won't, but don't act so high and mighty. Especially since "illegal numbers" has been the standard argument of people with lots of opinion and little knowledge. BTW, massively editing and expanding your comment after a reply without any notice is shady.
- zeth___ 9y agoYou are continuing to be hostile. I have read the paper, years ago. His point about 'colour of bits' is conflating a number of different ideas. A chain of trust and intent for starters. A chain of trust is a trivially easy thing to solve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_trust Asking that bits meet some simple predefined function isn't hard. In his example simply demanding that along with the substance you are provided a signed copy of the ph value would mean that bits without color give us all the information we need, given the physical limitations of the universe as we understand it. Intent isn't. But intent has nothing to do with the bits either. Which has been my point from the start: no digital information should be a priori illegal. On the edit: I finished it before your post. I'm not sure how long a line took to write, but I suspect it was way less than the time needed to refresh the thread.
- Tomte 9y agoYou're hostile and not discussing in good faith. Please leave HN.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]