l33t233372

9 ms·

61.
by l33t233372 3y ago
This is an awful lot of math. It’s funny juxtaposed to your other comment disregarding the need for mathematics background in encryption.
62.
by l33t233372 3y ago
It seems like you have an issue with _how_ the math is explain, not _that_ the math is explained.
63.
by l33t233372 3y ago
Can you explain why? It’s my understanding that every cryptographic algorithm is based on math, much of it not so simple.
64.
by l33t233372 3y ago
When everything is finite and memory is always limited, what are you meaningfully saying about the possible behaviors of software here?
65.
by l33t233372 3y ago
The third bullet point explicitly mentions the device being compromised, so I think it’s unfair to paint that as unrelated to security or just a parental-control issue.
66.
by l33t233372 3y ago
That’s not necessarily true. The government grants the right to a free public education, for example. So-called positive rights are not something you’re born with, as opposed to negative rights, which are things you’re protected from the go
67.
by l33t233372 3y ago
The US constitution only describes the powers the government has and some restrictions of those powers.
68.
by l33t233372 3y ago
So why are you mentioning it like it’s a unique drawback? It’s inherent to the activity!
69.
by l33t233372 3y ago
> voiding my warranty and risking bricking my phone using a jailbreak exploit Messing around with the kernel generally does run the risk of voiding warranties and bricking devices.
70.
by l33t233372 3y ago
> computers are naturally able to compute. Computers aren’t naturally able to do anything. This specific computer system was created as an iOS machine. That’s it’s “””natural””” purpose.
71.
by l33t233372 3y ago
I think that’s an important part of it, yes. Do you feel that if you bought an xbox that don’t own that?
72.
by l33t233372 3y ago
Yes. It doesn’t provide any access to it at all.
73.
by l33t233372 3y ago
> It's a perfectly fine computer, but Apple went and turned it into an iPhone App Executor. I never argued that the hardware physically couldn’t execute instructions for other purposes > Apple owns the machine, not you. That’s no
74.
by l33t233372 3y ago
Of course there’s nothing inherent to it that makes it locked down. The microprocessor in my dishwasher could also run arbitrary code. That doesn’t mean locking it down is bad or wrong.
75.
by l33t233372 3y ago
Isn’t that how every locked down computer is created?
76.
by l33t233372 3y ago
> It doesn't need to be "turned" into a general purpose device. It already is. That's its nature I don’t understand what you’re saying. Apple didn’t find these devices in the wild and tame them. They created them.
77.
by l33t233372 3y ago
Why? What makes phones general purpose that wouldn’t apply to an xbox?
78.
by l33t233372 3y ago
I would argue that phones are not general purpose computing devices either.
79.
by l33t233372 3y ago
That level of logic taught to every mathematics and computer science student, and it’s really not what I was thought others in this thread were talking about.
80.
by l33t233372 3y ago
Homeless people also exist in non-capitalist economies so I’m not certain that is evidence of anything. Scarcity is the problem, not capitalism.
81.
by l33t233372 3y ago
> As part of the first semester you take linear algebra and analysis, starting out with the basics of formal logic There is not enough time to learn the basics of formal logic and linear algebra and/or analysis in a single class, bu
82.
by l33t233372 3y ago
> If the cost of losing data to hacks was, say three times higher than the cost estimated to secure it I’d estimate that if this happened, the cost to secure data would grow by about a factor of 3.
83.
by l33t233372 3y ago
iPad had lots of producer-esque features, so I’m not sure what you mean by that.
84.
by l33t233372 3y ago
I’m sorry to be blunt, but what on earth are you talking about? Could you please provide a heap of more context — this reads like conspiracy nonsense upon first glance.
85.
by l33t233372 3y ago
I’m confused about what you’re saying here. GP doesn’t imply no one could possibly enjoy metaverse; when they are talking about “what people want,” I think this should be taken as “what [the vast majority of] people want.” This is in line w
86.
by l33t233372 3y ago
You specifically said “one class at a time” what did you mean? > trending towards aggressively simplistic labeling of complex social issues I think that’s the opposite of true.
87.
by l33t233372 3y ago
I’m not convinced FUD is a real thing.
88.
by l33t233372 3y ago
FUD is an interesting term. Why do you use it here? Are you implying GP’s message is part of a broader campaign?
89.
by l33t233372 3y ago
Why do you feel this is a language problem?
90.
by l33t233372 3y ago
> Harvard. It's unfortunate in the present day that so many naive tech individuals don't understand that they've been deliberately recruited by the left in universities worldwide via indoctrination one class at a time Can

More ›