opt-skept

7 ms·

1.
by opt-skept 2y ago
Sorry in advance for the verbosity, but I really feel like we're crossing paths. The US doesn't want to start a war with China. The US wants to prevent China's rise. It wants to do this as cheaply and as efficiently as possib
2.
by opt-skept 2y ago
Today I learned "gish galloping". No, I am a wordy person and I apologize for that. I think you'll find it isn't an excessive amount of arguments, but an excessive amount of detail to a very straightforward argument. At
3.
by opt-skept 2y ago
Okay, so for (b) we agree that China does not want to agitate a war with the US; that it would like to avoid it. For (a) you do not have an area of critique where you believe any chain of logic presented earlier in the thread in unsound. In
4.
by opt-skept 2y ago
The Belfare Center for Science and International Affairs has a nice report ( https://www.belfercenter.org/thucydides-trap/case-file ) indicating this is a good predictor for conflict (and lists examples that you can use)
5.
by opt-skept 2y ago
While I disagree with this on its own merit, its important to point out this does not address the question/topic. Asked above was: (a) What steps of reasoning do you think are unsound? (b) What reasons do you believe that China has to
6.
by opt-skept 2y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful response and for sharing your opinion. About the standard you propose. It's interesting, but there might be some issues with it. I am writing this not to change your opinion but to expand on the idea with y
7.
by opt-skept 2y ago
I'm a bit confused about the question and how this relates to the topic. I don't know how many journalists are lurking non-front page HN stories, so you'll probably get a non-journalist answer to the question (if anyone ventu
8.
by opt-skept 2y ago
Could you add some more information about what steps of reasoning you find unsound, or what reasons you believe China would have to agitate for a conflict? The "Thucydides Trap" and its application to Sino-American conflict is not
9.
by opt-skept 2y ago
> Just to be clear, what are we talking about here exactly? An ostensible war would be to set back China's growth and its trajectory of growth. The US has little interest in governing such a large country.
10.
by opt-skept 2y ago
Note, this isn't going to be a surprise attack. China is developing access to hold the infrastructure at risk as a retaliation/deterrent for an American attack on China. It is highly likely that the US has achieved similar levels
11.
by opt-skept 2y ago
Is it "largely" for filtering search results that civilians will have easy access to, in line with IDF narratives and perspectives (?)
12.
by opt-skept 2y ago
This has a range of 400+km (100kmph = 4 hours to respond). It's purpose to maintain an accurate picture of the sky, tracking many objects at the same time at different altitudes. The radar itself is just part of the picture - its data
13.
by opt-skept 3y ago
In my opinion we're protecting from LLM generated content all wrong. A modest proposal: (a) Put LLMs in the defensive role, give them the social media posts (for example) and let them determine whether to show the content (b) Give the
14.
by opt-skept 3y ago
I disagree. I think inspecting the output from Qualys (and other tools, including SAST) are substantially and manifestly different from inspecting Kubernetes logs. I would worry the argument about "highly skilled SREs" could becom
15.
by opt-skept 3y ago
Eh... maybe. I think "configuring SAST" goes back to what you had previously said about "tool monkeys". Now there's thousands of potential issues. Many are false positives. Who is going to tune that SAST for accurac
16.
by opt-skept 3y ago
As part of the industry, I can tell you I've personally found dozens (hundreds?) of vulnerabilities per year for the more than decade running of my career. The same is true of my collegues. I have met "cybersecurity teams" wh
17.
by opt-skept 3y ago
I'm on two sides about this article. The first side is that ultimately the argument that the author debunks is a strawman argument, and the counter-arguments are equally sophomoric. The second side is that I agree with the author on (s