Strilanc

72 ms·

721.
by Strilanc 11y ago
> Anything to do with active disabling is easy to prevent via jamming. Jamming is better than unlocking. Especially if you can fallback to the normal key. > A really long key... I hope you're joking. Obviously you'd have
722.
by Strilanc 11y ago
Some half-baked ideas: - If the car was inductively powering the key, that might be harder/more dangerous to amplify. - The car or house could send a false key signal, which would also be amplified, and refuse to open when receiving it
723.
by Strilanc 11y ago
I don't see how that helps. QKD stops eavesdroppers, not amplifiers.
724.
Entangled States are like Unitary Matrices(strilanc.com)
13 points by Strilanc 11y ago|0 comments
725.
by Strilanc 12y ago
QC since Democritus is a weird mix of textbook and popularization; I think you could absolutely read it without understanding the details and still enjoy it. You won't get as much , but you'll still get something. I didn't u
726.
by Strilanc 12y ago
If you think a cryptosystem is weak, so that it will take years to break a key (instead of millenia), then reducing key expiration times to months seems like a good way to buy some time. And it incentivizes moving to a system that's no
727.
by Strilanc 12y ago
This seems both promising and creepy. Could make walking somewhere a lot easier for the blind. Could be a safety system that kicks in just before your kid chases a ball into traffic (if strong enough). Could help with training for sports (i
728.
by Strilanc 12y ago
You're being downvoted but your right. It's unfortunately hard to not sound like a crackpot on this sort of issue, because there are a lot of relativity-is-wrong crackpots. As far as special relativity goes, the aether ends up bei
729.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Most of the responses seem to be talking about A -> Custom -Strong -> Unstrong -> Uncustom instead of A -> Strong -> Custom -> Uncustom -> Unstrong*. Some potential problems with applying a custom transform to the cyp
730.
by Strilanc 12y ago
That's very interesting. I always assumed averaging (maybe with varying weights across frames and time), or applying a few rounds of other steganography, would degrade the encoded message into noise. Could you link to some papers? If y
731.
by Strilanc 12y ago
The Wikipedia article [1] is better than this one, IMO. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_ph...
732.
by Strilanc 12y ago
FYI, the algorithm you were describing was to compute a convex hull. It can be done in O(n lg n) time by sorting the points by angle w.r.t. some starting point and then "gift wrapping". You can find where to add a new point in O(l
733.
by Strilanc 12y ago
You're using a mathematical model that doesn't apply. The ahead-of-time simulations invalidate the idea that your decision can't affect the outcome, despite the final decision ultimately occurring afterwards. An analogy would
734.
by Strilanc 12y ago
> in general, positive current stimulates neural activity while negative current inhibits it I don't understand how this sentence can be right. Current is positive or negative w.r.t. a direction, right? Does the brain have some pr
735.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Relevant paper: Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err [1] > We show that people are especially averse to algorithmic forecasters after seeing them perform, even when they see them outperform a h
736.
by Strilanc 12y ago
I didn't realize they doubled as both iterables and observables. Being able to pass a value in is a useful trick, although it looks a bit annoying to forward passed in values *due to error/return requiring try-catch shenanigans).
737.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Arxiv has the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7790
738.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Some of them are justifiable, some are terrible, and some are both. That's one of the justifiable ones.
739.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Justifiable and terrible answers: - "" (the 1 gets converted to a string, and string-string could have meant remove-if-tail) - NaN or undefined (bad operations could give bad results) - "1" (bad operations could be ignor
740.
by Strilanc 12y ago
"Information hazard" is just a term for "things you or others learn and then are worse off because of". Examples of information hazards: - Instructions on how to make a gigaton bomb with processes and materials anyone ca
741.
by Strilanc 12y ago
I'm not trying to put forth a framework, I'm trying to explain the side you're not on without straw-manning them. - If you prefer 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 specks to 1 torture - and you follow the axiom that A &
742.
by Strilanc 12y ago
That is indeed a common place where people disagree. The basic reason it should follow is that not doing so makes you inconsistent and exploitable (e.g. pumping money out of people with the Allais paradox[1]). The fact that humans have pref
743.
by Strilanc 12y ago
It's disingenuous to characterize moral disagreement as ignorance. Eliezer is aware that people think the torture is worse and of the arguments they make to justify it, he simply thinks they're wrong. Why does he think they'r
744.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Given that this compilation was published on March 11th, and hpmor finished on March 14th, I don't think it's making the rounds now because of the timing of hpmor. Their finish/release dates are simply close together.
745.
by Strilanc 12y ago
(Different person here.) The most common example I see is the dust-specks vs torture thing[1], where Eliezer thinks increasing dust specks eventually outweighs the torture and various other people think torture outweighs any number of dust
746.
by Strilanc 12y ago
I recently attended a talk by the team that approximately solved the two player head's-up limit hold'em variant of poker. Their strategy is close enough to optimal that a perfectly exploiting opponent would take millions of played
747.
by Strilanc 12y ago
A much longer post with a similar gist is "I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup"[1] by Scott Alexander (I recommend the whole blog actually): > According to Gallup polls, about 46% of Americans are creationists. Not jus
748.
by Strilanc 12y ago
You might find the recent paper "Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err"[1] interesting. > [...] Dawes subsequently gathered a large body of evidence showing that human experts did not pe
749.
by Strilanc 12y ago
The site appears to be down. It's in google cache; looks like just a project description with some linked reports. Here's a cache of the final report [1]. 1: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ah
750.
by Strilanc 12y ago
This was a poorly written article, in my opinion. It failed to communicate the intent of the paper. I think it's trying to say something like... In quantum information theory there's pure states, like "[Off]", "[O

More ›