mr_mitm

44 ms·

871.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
This attack was so sophisticated that I don't understand half of it after a first read. It's plainly obvious that it is not a simple typo or a blunder but very carefully crafted.
872.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
I don't think phishing is such an obscure scenario. The point is also that you as an individual can make choices and assess risk. As a large service provider, you will always have people who reuse passwords, store them unencrypted, fal
873.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Keyloggers can be physically attached to your keyboard. There could also be a vulnerability in the encryption of wireles keyboards. Certificate-based MFA is also phishing resistant, unlike long, random, unique passwords. There are plenty of
874.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
I'm not sure what exactly you mean, but the Hubble tension could also be explained if we live in a particularly large under dense region of the universe. Then the light we observe from the CMB basically has to climb out of a gravitatio
875.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
> Just more evidence the well educated (I assume if it’s concensus driven even the best educated agree) are just typical people and their expertise should be challenged constantly rather than sit back and assume things are figured out. A
876.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
> The expansion of universe is accelerating. We knew that before. This goes deeper than that. It accelerates in a way that cannot be explained by a constant dark energy density, which is part of our standard model. We have plenty of alt
877.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Maybe in earth's crust, but on a galactic scale carbon is more common. But they're both one of the most common elements either way, so I think other properties would be more important. The way the GP comment describes carbon-based
878.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
I'm up for it, but since you are the one who proposed we could have unimaginable forms of life, and I'm coming up short, I'm relying on you (or anyone who holds your position) here to be the creative one.
879.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Good point. So unless they freeze themselves, whoever arrives might not even be the same species as the ones who left.
880.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
I don't see that particular statement "leading" to the second statement. You quoted very selectively and didn't quote the part that is the reason why I believe carbon-based to be much more likely, i.e. the fact that sili
881.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
I agree. The only way to colonize other solar systems is using some sort of cryogenic technology or generation ships. And even then, no one alive will ever witness the ship arriving at the destination. Which, to me, raises the question why
882.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
I can buy the argument that there might be "digital life" that has been built by carbon-based biological life which has since ceased to be.
883.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
I'm on the more pessimistic side of this argument. Lots of very smart people have thought about this, and really the only element that is able to form complex molecules besides carbon is silicon, and there are good arguments as to why
884.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
> Reddit has hamfistedly broken whatever value it once had as a platform for long form discussion, with the interesting and valuable fringe, hobbyist, and obscure niche forums having been banned or moderated into inane milquetoast. Now,
885.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
The amount of detail on that site is breathtaking. Beautifully done, really. However, on the question at hand, it mostly says: >Bicycle stability can’t be explained using just one or two mechanisms. It’s a combination of many different i
886.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
My professor debunked this in experimental physics 101. He installed counter wheels on the wheels which spun in the opposite direction (without touching the floor obviously) and was able to still ride the bike just fine. It may play a part
887.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
It all depends on what you mean by "view". In my understanding it does not immediately follow that it must be "viewed" by making use of collision experiments. This picture in my opinion "views" dark matter just
888.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
They were talking about the total relative amount. All evidence independently points to DM making up around 85% of all matter.
889.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
You also cannot "view" neutrinos, yet no one doubts their existence. By the way, they too have been postulated because collision experiments were showing some missing kinetic energy and momentum. People said "maybe there is a
890.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
The controversy is really only present in laymen circles. In scientific circles, DM proponents vastly outnumber MOND proponents. I agree that science is meant to be challenged, but a worthy challenger must produce a better theory. The conse
891.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Discussion from four days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39673087
892.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Same here. I love the creativity (and am impressed by it) it takes to invent new German words for things, even though I agree that it is impractical for the reason you pointed out. Sadly, terms like "Klapprechner" for "laptop
893.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Just the field of physics is so large that most would probably not dare to state criticism in other sub fields. Like a Nobel prize winner in solid state physics would never judge the work of a high energy particle physicist and vice versa.
894.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
No. Peer review is an established process in which the editor chooses usually two to four expert peers who review the paper. It is double blinded to reduce bias. It is also not the point of peer review to judge the correctness of the theory
895.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
We believe that the universe is accurately described by the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric, for which we have good reasons, and which only allows a few trajectories of the scale factor. I'm not aware of any model with a sine
896.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
If that is so, the same tech giants are now pushing for passkeys, which is actually close to the ideal solution.
897.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Still better than no second factor
898.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
>science doesn't happen in a vacuum Yes, everybody agrees, but you specifically responded to the statement that Poincaré and Lorentz had nothing to do with GR. You said that statement was wrong, but it looks more like you confused S
899.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
This quote is about special relativity.
900.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Can you really prove anything beyond your own existence? Descartes says no. Maybe all your senses are just an illusion.

More ›