SilasX

15 ms·

271.
by SilasX 2y ago
Related: in tptacek’s Cryptopals/Matasano security challenge, there are two kinds of problems: A) Implement this off-the-shelf cryptosystem based on the public documentation about it. B) Given this cryptosystem and these hints, find an
272.
by SilasX 2y ago
So much this. I get if the system incentivizes health insurers to act this way, and I get that it's unreasonable to expect unilateral disarmament of anyone. But FFS, surely they have to realize this situation is unsustainable? Should
273.
by SilasX 2y ago
Separate comment to address a subtlety that comes up a lot: Often you'll hear about fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) being Turing-complete. But you can't actually have a Turing complete system with variable-run-time loops that&#
274.
by SilasX 2y ago
I'm not sure I have a direct answer, but I agree something shouldn't be called a computer if it just does a one-shot, fixed-length calculation before requiring further human intervention. To be a "computer", and be assoc
275.
by SilasX 2y ago
Reminds me of the Nuremberg Files from the 90s, an anti-abortionist's site that kept a list with addresses of abortion doctors. It kept listing the ones who got killed, and added a strikeout mark through them. (The wanted posters in th
276.
by SilasX 2y ago
Just to put the hypothesis out there: because he's a fall guy to placate the people afraid of being killed like the UHC CEO, which the authorities desperately need. (Although a brief perusal of the photos in the article doesn't sh
277.
by SilasX 2y ago
>The question becomes why all_of returns true for an empty list. Yes! Before it became a programming problem, I considered the implications of this decision for common speech. In that case, it will generally be expected that when someone
278.
by SilasX 2y ago
I think you want "optimistically".
279.
by SilasX 2y ago
Not disagreeing, and I'm not sure if your comment was intended as a joke, but it's kind of funny what just happened here, if anyone missed it: "They say you have to use concrete examples, but not everyone needs that." &#
280.
by SilasX 2y ago
This. Not to mention deplaning and more expense time screening for security.
281.
by SilasX 2y ago
"Correct" here doesn't mean "correct" information -- I made sure to clarify what it means with an example.
282.
by SilasX 2y ago
I've found it very helpful to make the following distinction: Spec: Do X in situation Y. Correctness bug: It doesn't do X in situation Y. Fitness-for-purpose (FFP) bug: It does X in situation Y, but, knowing this, you decide you d
283.
by SilasX 2y ago
Wow that’s almost as bad as Firefox five years ago … except this probably doesn’t compromise privacy addons that will get someone killed. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/05/technical-details-on-the-r...
284.
by SilasX 2y ago
>I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general. But you were -- you just hid it under a veneer of snark, innuendo, and plausible deniability so I'd be tainted by the implication, while still allowing you t
285.
by SilasX 2y ago
>The thing is, the last part does not just explain the joke, it is a very angry rant, and it ruins it for me because of the change of tone. The original criticism I wasn't objecting to wasn't making this distinction, and so thi
286.
by SilasX 2y ago
I don’t think it’s about computers stabbing people, but that’s not relevant. The issue is your willingness to keep people in the dark so you can feel good that you got a reference without it being explained.
287.
by SilasX 2y ago
Maybe it’s just me, but I fundamentally disagree with the mentality that we should prioritize the “feeling of being special” among those who already get the joke (and corresponding point) at the expense of those who have yet to appreciate t
288.
by SilasX 2y ago
I couldn’t tell if it was intended to be a note-for-note parody of an RFC about the do-not-track header, but I couldn’t find one that would qualify. The closest would be this[1], but it doesn’t cleanly match up (in part because [1] is more
289.
by SilasX 2y ago
Then they should be renamed CFCs (closed for comments).
290.
by SilasX 2y ago
You could split the difference with a 397 TOLERATING response, which lets you say "okay I'll handle that for now, but here's what you were supposed to do, and I'll expect that in the future". (j/k it's an
291.
by SilasX 2y ago
Thank you. People can be very bad about judging which scenarios are truly implausible. Here’s a previous thread where someone thought it was absurd that there could exist native English speakers who don’t regularly go shopping, and treated
292.
by SilasX 2y ago
Which is also a problem with thinking this is a helpful abstraction: apparently, not everything you need to do can be captured by functions (in that sense)!
293.
by SilasX 2y ago
Not sure if you’re joking, but if not: there’s no practical difference is what is being asked of the reader. Nobody predicates any decision on whether they were asked to note something vs note it well. It’s pointless jargon.
294.
by SilasX 2y ago
Ugh. Similar (huge) pet peeve about people who say "n.B." instead of "note".
295.
by SilasX 2y ago
Right, at least as of the ~GPT3 model it was just "predict what you would see in a chess game", not "what would be the best move". So (IIRC) users noted that if you made bad move, then the model would also reply with
296.
by SilasX 2y ago
Hm, okay, you're right, that part doesn't make sense, I'll have to review it and get the context to see what they were trying to establish with that scene.
297.
by SilasX 2y ago
There’s the scene where Marty takes rooms at the Blue Cat Lodge off the market for renovations, against Rachel’s objections that he wait for the off season, suggesting real stuff is actually being done to them. Then later she confronts him
298.
by SilasX 2y ago
Haha there's an episode of Better Call Saul where nerdy, middle-aged Dan is noticed by the authorities as spending far more than he earns, and he explains it away as being an escort for rich fetishists who like seeing him sit on pies
299.
by SilasX 2y ago
Yeah that was my reaction as well. The post goes on to insist that, despite this intuition, it still generates good feedback, but … for the same reasons you give, I have to doubt that self report too. All the other points seem solid, though
300.
by SilasX 2y ago
>Book fraudulent expenses for the hotel, making it look like it's spent a lot more money than it really has. No actual money changes hands anywhere. As I understand the show, they were buying overpriced things from cartel-owned ente

More ›