ohazi

76 ms·

721.
by ohazi 6y ago
It's silly to talk about this as if we'd throw out dns entirely... To address the original concern, all we'd have to do is throw out the ICANN root and replace it with a root controlled by a new NOTICANN organization. People
722.
by ohazi 6y ago
And because they're law enforcement, they'll respond with 10 times the firepower, killing the armed/confused civilian(s) instantly and effortlessly. They'll get away with it too, because, again... they're law enforc
723.
by ohazi 6y ago
That's... Okay, yeah, that's fair. The libraries are pretty awful.
724.
by ohazi 6y ago
> requiring me to get me a master's degree in cyber security No! You should get that degree if you want to design your own scheme like you're trying to do now. If you don't want to bother, then just use the standard algo
725.
by ohazi 6y ago
Are you aware that the "my homebrew crypto system is functionally equivalent to a one-time pad, and is therefore perfect" argument is so overused by cranks that it's considered a cliche among actual cryptographers? [1] https
726.
by ohazi 6y ago
I really wanted Lime to succeed here, because we could all use the competition, but man, that Lime chip really is absolute crap. It has dead zones all over the spectrum where the LO PLL won't lock, even within the temperature spec. [1]
727.
by ohazi 6y ago
> Steganography is still security through obscurity. It doesn't have to be. Maybe that's where our misunderstanding is coming from. The method I'm suggesting is this: 1) Generate a good passphrase and memorize it. 2) Use a
728.
by ohazi 6y ago
But you can have both! Why are we even arguing about this? Nothing is preventing you from having both strong cryptography AND obscurity, except for your insistence that hiding the key is a reasonable thing to do. It isn't reasonable.
729.
by ohazi 6y ago
Nobody in this thread is arguing that you shouldn't use obscurity. We're arguing that you shouldn't use obscurity ON THE KEY. MEMORIZE the key. Obscure the ciphertext. You cannot hide a key effectively using steganography.
730.
by ohazi 6y ago
> I'm telling you, I could invent an obscure security scheme that NSA couldn't crack in a million years because they wouldn't even know where to start. Oh, boy. First of all, you didn't. You invented a broken scheme,
731.
by ohazi 6y ago
> I don't see how it's any more secure than storing a manipulated key in plain text You don't see how not storing the key is more secure than storing the key? I'm suggesting you memorize the key, and only store the
732.
by ohazi 6y ago
The design cycle time is longer. Every prototype requires a formal agreement with one of the fabs you work with, and usually involves a few million dollars changing hands. A few months is usually the minimum. Even if it's expensive, ow
733.
by ohazi 6y ago
While you're in a gulag? I don't understand why you're doubling down on this. There's an easy, correct way to do this that doesn't have the same vulnerabilities as the method you're describing. The tools to do
734.
by ohazi 6y ago
Steganography is for hiding the fact that you're hiding something, it's not for protecting the thing that you're hiding. You still need real cryptography to do that. You can encode a real cryptographic key in a relatively sho
735.
by ohazi 6y ago
It's not difficult to memorize one reasonably good passphrase, and there are well-known key-stretching algorithms that are understood to provide however many bits you need of actual security from this passphrase. > Just shift al
736.
by ohazi 6y ago
WTF, do not do this. You can use real encryption, like GPG in symmetric mode with a memorized passphrase that gets properly key-stretched. Then store the resulting uniform random-looking blob in image metadata or whatever. Obscurity is to p
737.
by ohazi 6y ago
It's interesting to note that none of the merged companies are fabless. Analog and low-to-mid complexity digital designs don't usually use the smallest, newest, most expensive silicon processes that you need for processors, GPUs,
738.
by ohazi 6y ago
They really are. $5 for a $2 op-amp or a regulator is one thing, but when you need something slightly special, it goes to $10 or $20, just because TI doesn't have a comparable part. If you need more than a handful in your design, you&#
739.
by ohazi 6y ago
The "x86 version of the iOS frameworks" is where those differences would be apparent. Apple may have done a good job with their simulator, but that's just it -- Apple did this work so that their iOS developers wouldn't h
740.
by ohazi 6y ago
You're leaving out the part where management at Intel has been a complete shit show for over a decade. > In ten years, the US won't be able to make electronics in volume. Quite possibly, but if this happens, it'll be Intel
741.
by ohazi 6y ago
> Writing software on ARM laptops that are deployed to production servers running on x86 servers will start to cause a host of new challenges. We already know what this is like, and the challenges are usually in the other direction (writ
742.
by ohazi 6y ago
> This is characterized as post-stall, sometimes called "non-aerodynamic" controlled flight. i.e. "Falling with style"
743.
by ohazi 6y ago
> Gotta pay for content somehow I'll pay with money, but I'll never pay with my time. You don't get it back. Ad-blocker for me.
744.
by ohazi 6y ago
I wanted this, but I wanted the WQHD display more. Lenovo didn't allow you to configure a T480 with both the high-resolution display and the plastic slider, it was either-or. The high-resolution display was their premium option that
745.
by ohazi 6y ago
> My biggest worry is that, since the GNOME folks control GTK+, it will morph into something that non-GNOME projects (like Xfce) can't realistically use. This is a valid concern: https://askubuntu.com/questions/
746.
by ohazi 6y ago
This is the only correct design, yet almost nobody does this. One of the challenges is verifying that this was done correctly. You may be able to verify a design like this once with a teardown, but it's impractical to verify your part
747.
by ohazi 6y ago
The great thing about languages that implement HM types is that they allow you work as quickly or as carefully as you'd like without needing to change languages. If you've done something a million times before and are familiar wit
748.
by ohazi 6y ago
In Rust, I'll usually add a type hint for clarity if I have a massive method chain full of confusing transformations. Sometimes I'll also temporarily add them to closure arguments so that autocomplete is happier. But otherwise you
749.
by ohazi 6y ago
Sorry, I specifically meant touch sliders, not physical sliders, and especially not physical sliders with nicely tuned damped physical resistance like on expensive audio equipment.
750.
by ohazi 6y ago
I don't understand why anyone would prefer a volume slider to discrete up/down buttons. I almost never want to quickly slide to a specific volume, it's always "this is a little too loud" or "I didn't quite

More ›