6 ms·

> A higher probability exists that every member of your programming team will be attacked and killed by wolves in unrelated incidents on the same night. - Scot

> A higher probability exists that every member of your programming team will be attacked and killed by wolves in unrelated incidents on the same night. - Scott Chacon

asdfman123 5y ago
That's even true if you make your developers commute into Yellowstone National Park by ski every day
bawolff 5y ago
This is stupid. The probability of any attack happening at random is close to zero. E.g. the probability of a buffer overflowing just right to give you a shell through random chance is less than being eaten by wolves. The question is about the risk of someone intentionally performing the attack, not the probability it will accidentally happen at random.
kragen 5y ago
This turns out to be wrong; for a 6-member programming team, that probability is about 2⁻²⁴⁵, which is about 2⁸⁵·³ times less likely than an accidental 160-bit SHA-1 collision: http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/rpn-edit#3_8_0_1_0_0_0_7_0_0_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_2015_2000_-_365_1_4_/_+_*_7_1000_1000_1000_*_*_*_*_/_ln_6_*_2_ln_/ http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/rpn-edit#3_8_0_1_0_0_0_... Aside from being bullshit, it's also irrelevant, since we're discussing a collision being generated on purpose, not by accident.
- CobrastanJorji 5y ago
  Just to nitpick, I don't think that formula is valid. We're primarily interested in "unrelated" wolf attacks, but it counts the total fatalities, not the total number of fatal incidents. If we count each fatal attack as only one incident, regardless of the casualties, we get 2^-258 instead. But of course we also need to take into account where the 6-member team lives. If they all live in West Bengal, India, the consideration is much different than if our developers live in Atlanta. Atlanta doesn't have any wild wolves. There is a Wolf's guenon in the zoo, but that probably doesn't count as a risk because they mostly eat small animals and also are monkeys.
  - fierro 5y ago
    I concur.
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    This is why I always get mad when people say something like "you are more likely to be struck by lightning than eaten by a shark!".... we'll, that REALLY depends on where you are.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > that REALLY depends on where you are There's only 10 fatal shark attacks per year. What's your calculation for the sharkiest area to live? It has to be something like 100+ times sharkier than average for your claim to be true. And keep in mind that half the US population can easily day trip to the ocean. Edit: Actually, that's using a number of 2000 lightning fatalities which might be 10x too low. And lightning injuries are another 10x higher than that. So you'd need somewhere that shark attacks are a thousand or ten thousand times more likely than average. That's also without interpreting "eaten" literally...
      - Jensson 5y ago
        You focused on the shark side and not on the lightning side. You will never get struck by lightning in a city, so there the probability is 0. Similarly if you go out swimming in the ocean on a sunny day the probability of getting struck by lightning is also 0, but the probability of getting eaten by a shark is not 0.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        You're going too granular. This is about populations that live in certain areas, not specific people on specific days. "depends on where you are" when talking about an over-time risk ratio. The goal isn't to find some dude with weird habits. And while a population that mostly stays inside a city has a reduced lightning chance, it also has a reduced shark chance. I don't think that's anywhere near the point of equalizing the rate. If you have an idea for a factor that dramatically reduces lightning risk but doesn't reduce shark risk much, I'm interested.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > Aside from being bullshit, it's also irrelevant, since we're discussing a collision being generated on purpose, not by accident. I think you just pointed out the error in your own reasoning. This is defending against a deliberate attack. Therefore, your proper odds would be that your programming team is deliberately set upon by 6 different wolves. So, have they offended people who have access to 6 wolves, and the time and inclination to train them (or hire others to) in an effort to pull off a murder spree? Edit: Actually, the hash attack already assumes motivation and skill. So, I don't know what the odds would have to be computed. That at least one programmer on your team could fight off a trained attack wolf (to whatever level of "training" is the current state of the art for attack wolves)?

> A higher probability exists that every member of your programming team will be attacked and killed by wolves in unrelated incidents on the same night. - Scott Chacon

asdfman123 5y ago

That's even true if you make your developers commute into Yellowstone National Park by ski every day

bawolff 5y ago

This is stupid. The probability of any attack happening at random is close to zero. E.g. the probability of a buffer overflowing just right to give you a shell through random chance is less than being eaten by wolves. The question is about the risk of someone intentionally performing the attack, not the probability it will accidentally happen at random.

kragen 5y ago

This turns out to be wrong; for a 6-member programming team, that probability is about 2⁻²⁴⁵, which is about 2⁸⁵·³ times less likely than an accidental 160-bit SHA-1 collision: http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/rpn-edit#3_8_0_1_0_0_0_7_0_0_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_2015_2000_-_365_1_4_/_+_*_7_1000_1000_1000_*_*_*_*_/_ln_6_*_2_ln_/ http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/rpn-edit#3_8_0_1_0_0_0_... Aside from being bullshit, it's also irrelevant, since we're discussing a collision being generated on purpose, not by accident.

CobrastanJorji 5y ago
Just to nitpick, I don't think that formula is valid. We're primarily interested in "unrelated" wolf attacks, but it counts the total fatalities, not the total number of fatal incidents. If we count each fatal attack as only one incident, regardless of the casualties, we get 2^-258 instead. But of course we also need to take into account where the 6-member team lives. If they all live in West Bengal, India, the consideration is much different than if our developers live in Atlanta. Atlanta doesn't have any wild wolves. There is a Wolf's guenon in the zoo, but that probably doesn't count as a risk because they mostly eat small animals and also are monkeys.
- fierro 5y ago
  I concur.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  This is why I always get mad when people say something like "you are more likely to be struck by lightning than eaten by a shark!".... we'll, that REALLY depends on where you are.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > that REALLY depends on where you are There's only 10 fatal shark attacks per year. What's your calculation for the sharkiest area to live? It has to be something like 100+ times sharkier than average for your claim to be true. And keep in mind that half the US population can easily day trip to the ocean. Edit: Actually, that's using a number of 2000 lightning fatalities which might be 10x too low. And lightning injuries are another 10x higher than that. So you'd need somewhere that shark attacks are a thousand or ten thousand times more likely than average. That's also without interpreting "eaten" literally...
    - Jensson 5y ago
      You focused on the shark side and not on the lightning side. You will never get struck by lightning in a city, so there the probability is 0. Similarly if you go out swimming in the ocean on a sunny day the probability of getting struck by lightning is also 0, but the probability of getting eaten by a shark is not 0.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        You're going too granular. This is about populations that live in certain areas, not specific people on specific days. "depends on where you are" when talking about an over-time risk ratio. The goal isn't to find some dude with weird habits. And while a population that mostly stays inside a city has a reduced lightning chance, it also has a reduced shark chance. I don't think that's anywhere near the point of equalizing the rate. If you have an idea for a factor that dramatically reduces lightning risk but doesn't reduce shark risk much, I'm interested.
HWR_14 5y ago
> Aside from being bullshit, it's also irrelevant, since we're discussing a collision being generated on purpose, not by accident. I think you just pointed out the error in your own reasoning. This is defending against a deliberate attack. Therefore, your proper odds would be that your programming team is deliberately set upon by 6 different wolves. So, have they offended people who have access to 6 wolves, and the time and inclination to train them (or hire others to) in an effort to pull off a murder spree? Edit: Actually, the hash attack already assumes motivation and skill. So, I don't know what the odds would have to be computed. That at least one programmer on your team could fight off a trained attack wolf (to whatever level of "training" is the current state of the art for attack wolves)?