infinity0

9 ms·

61.
by infinity0 7y ago
That's like saying "being a vehicle is how a lot of cars work"; the reasons on why the cipher is flawed are a bit more specific than that. As for the elitist arrogance, whilst I'm sure these exist in other security-relat
62.
by infinity0 7y ago
>> Designed to be as secure as a one-time pad, > That immediately shows that the person writing it doesn't know cryptography. You simply can't get the security of one-time pad [..] Talking about a one-time pad at all in
63.
by infinity0 7y ago
> I don't know how you could conclude they did not fuck up I explained in my comment - the sudden increase in cases in Wuhan in January, was not that much worse that what we're seeing in S Korea, Iran and Italy right now. These
64.
by infinity0 7y ago
> the people infected in Hubei be at 60,000 or so now. The people infected in Hubei are at about 60k or so now. Actually slightly lower. Were you trying to say something else?? 60k is pretty impressive considering all the other apocaly
65.
by infinity0 7y ago
Your comment is very reasonable and informative, please don't let the Hacker News anonymous downvote thoughtpolice mafia discourage you from posting comments to this site. They are the ones who should be getting banned.
66.
by infinity0 7y ago
The recent explosion in cases in South Korea, Italy and Iran would seem to suggest that in fact perhaps the officials in Wuhan did not fuck up handling the early part of the epidemic, at least much more so that the officials in these othe
67.
by infinity0 7y ago
That's a good start. I forgot to add though, to actually make group membership private for real-world practical purposes , you have to achieve all of the following: 1. group crypto can't give away the identities 2. your identity
68.
by infinity0 7y ago
> Enabling group administration was also a hard feat, as Signal has to give administrators the ability to add and remove members without its servers knowing who's part of the conversation. I was chatting with Trevor Perrin about abs
69.
by infinity0 7y ago
> People on FB and Reddit are just upvoting Twitter-screenshot-style pictures and screenshots of headlines with no sources [..] Those are much less sophisticated than the sorts of stuff this enables. Pointing out a qualitative similarity
70.
by infinity0 7y ago
Those have taken much more time to produce. Now it will take just a few seconds.
71.
by infinity0 7y ago
Failing to distinguish "woke" from a genuine desire and effectiveness to help the world, is itself not helpful to the world. I've seen plenty of people "talk the talk" but act in a way that is completely disingenuou
72.
by infinity0 7y ago
More and more often recently, I find downvoted comments that I thought are all perfectly useful and reasonable to the discussion. I in fact thought the downvotes were neither "useful" nor "contributing to the discussion"
73.
The Contrarian Who Cures Cancers(quantamagazine.org)
1 points by infinity0 7y ago|0 comments
74.
by infinity0 7y ago
Random feedbackless downvoting is more and more being clearly abused to censor seemingly random and perfectly acceptable comments. The fact that talking about it is against the site guidelines only makes the problem worse. HN needs to deal
75.
by infinity0 7y ago
> To contextualize when Wuhan had O(1000) cases, before full quarantine, the infection was growing at a rate of 50-100% per day. In contrast all of the aforementioned provinces are now currently keeping growth below the target of 10% per
76.
by infinity0 7y ago
Is someone able to properly translate this graph? https://img1.dxycdn.com/2020/0210/392/3395802964777411656-13... . Seems like someone is estimating 250k "potential" cases? Google Translate isn'
77.
by infinity0 7y ago
I gave you some extra upvotes on your past comments because I think these unexplained downvotes are despicable too.
78.
by infinity0 7y ago
If 1% of all (medical) scientists is 500 then that means there are 50k (medical) scientists in the whole world. With some basic web searching, that would appear to be an underestimate; "thousands" would be a better estimate.
79.
by infinity0 7y ago
Someone has changed the title of this submission on HN. (The remote web page still has its original title.) And I don't see anyone else complaining about the title on this thread. So I suppose that part of my comment got through. If yo
80.
by infinity0 7y ago
Literally thousands of other people have the same qualifications as him and are also not freaking out over Twitter. I'd say the data leans more heavily in the other direction.
81.
by infinity0 7y ago
As I said in a different comment, 5 million people leave Wuhan every year around this time, and the model that made this 99%/25% prediction is using data that already takes into account this mass-migration.
82.
by infinity0 7y ago
I am replying to the correct comment. Like I said, the model uses input data from Jan 2017 , which will contain exactly this same migration as what you're currently discussing. This lockdown is strictly an improvement on the modelled
83.
by infinity0 7y ago
It's not. The model used historical figures from Jan 2017 as its input data, so would also be taking into account these New Year's mass-migrations. Also, this year's stopped at a relative early stage. Sure, if you want to get
84.
by infinity0 7y ago
The guy needs to Chill T F O. R0 of measles is like 12-18. And with the city-wide quarantine people should be modelling 99.99% reductions in travel not 99%.
85.
by infinity0 7y ago
Why are you assuming that epidemics only stop growing exponentially when they reach population saturation? That is not the case for all the recent respiratory epidemics. Even if they do, why is 20 a "low" number? They are talking
86.
by infinity0 7y ago
> reduction in travel alone will not do much to stop the spread. This is exactly what you can't conclude from the analysis that was done, the numbers matter significantly. If a 99% restriction locally gives a 25% reduction globally,
87.
by infinity0 7y ago
What about a 99.99% reduction in travel? Wuhan has 11 million and 1% of that is 100k, I'd imagine the quarantine is more successful than preventing 100k people from travelling.
88.
by infinity0 7y ago
The exponential growth always slows at some point, so unconditionally multiplying by 20 is unrealistic.
89.
by infinity0 7y ago
I know. I was responding to this overall thread, which started: > Unfortunately for the article's point, despite a brief moment of viability, even human+computer chess teams are now far outclassed by computers alone. and it then con
90.
by infinity0 7y ago
It's interesting that AlphaStar was "only" able to get into the top 99.8% of human-level play for StarCraft 2, though. By contrast, AlphaZero was able to surpass human-level play for Go quite easily. One wonders whether the i

More ›