txru

12 ms·

91.
by txru 7y ago
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
92.
by txru 7y ago
Ok, so a suspect tells the judge under oath that they encrypted the evidence, and the key is gone, as if it had been burned. Just as in burning with a fire, that suspect can be charged with willful destruction of evidence or obstruction of
93.
by txru 7y ago
I address this upthread, but when you talk about how it's easier to bring people to justice easily in the world today, frequently that ease results from over-broad subpoena or bulk-collection powers. I think that warrants give much mor
94.
by txru 7y ago
I'm not using to suggest unreasonable actions to subjects, I'm using that example as a clear example where the data is, itself, incriminating to possess or transact.
95.
by txru 7y ago
Remember, the Bill of Rights were tagged on after the Constitution. The Constitution establishes what powers the Government could and couldn't have, purely in its relationship with the constituent states. The Bill of Rights filter out
96.
by txru 7y ago
Yes, that's what's different. The canonical example here is child pornography. Consumption and distribution is a crime. If a person destroys it before the state sees it, well, that may be destruction of evidence, but the state wil
97.
by txru 7y ago
I agree, forcing people to testify to provide their keys is probably where our system will get stuck on this for good. That's a bad line to cross, and I don't think we'll cross it if we remain a lawful country. I say this bel
98.
by txru 7y ago
Ok, so warrants fail. There are cases where people are held in contempt of court, essentially for life. Is that a good resolution to warrants being broadly, commonly enforceable? Those people aren't convicted of the crime they were acc
99.
by txru 7y ago
I addressed the fire metaphor below. Destruction is irreversible, encryption is reversible, in short. But to answer your question, yes, it can be illegal to destroy evidence. I agree with you, this is a problem. What I advocate for to anyon
100.
by txru 7y ago
Fire is irreversible. Once the original good is destroyed, it can't be read or written to by the burner or anyone else. After evidence is destroyed, it only exists in (human) memory. Encryption is reversible. The information encrypted
101.
by txru 7y ago
What you posit with interrogated Face ID is a method of hacking encryption. You've provided a backdoor, that is the person's face. Previously the suspect's phone was encrypted, now the encryption is broken against the suspect
102.
by txru 7y ago
Warrants don't work, that's the problem. There have been many instances now where a judge issued a legal warrant that was impossible to enforce, because of encryption. Should that be the case? It's not a simple question.
103.
by txru 7y ago
It's the difference between exit and voice. I can perfectly well understand that many people may love Russia and it's culture, and hate the politics, so much that they're willing to die to change the politics. I'm sure t
104.
by txru 7y ago
I take your point, and I really don't want to be the spark of a syntactic flamewar. I suspected I was missing something, and that the $angle_bracketed_format was older, but I was searching the wrong things. It seems to me, though, that
105.
by txru 7y ago
Well, it is and isn't novel. S-expressions have been around since McCarthy, XML since the mid-90's. The point of the article is that XML is a more verbose re-interpretation of s-expressions-- it's hard to find things that XML
106.
by txru 7y ago
If you have time, this[0] is the canonical article usually shared around this concept. The thrust of it is that yes, XML (or x-expressions) and s-expressions are very similar, and that s-expressions are a less verbose and simpler way to rep
107.
by txru 7y ago
Ah yeah you're right. I knew they couldn't be destroyed by an autoclave, and I misunderstood what exactly those do. They're only pressure and heat above boiling (120*C).
108.
by txru 7y ago
Prions aren't eliminated by any of our burial methods anyway. I think the best thing you can hope for is preventing animals from eating contaminated tissue. That wouldn't be an issue with any legal method of human remains disposal
109.
by txru 7y ago
For sure. There's the 'jacked' aesthetic, and there's being strong and capable in our own bodies alone. While those things are often found together, there are definitely times when one is lacking. Both are practical for
110.
by txru 7y ago
Strongly agree with the body weight training, but also check out the bodyweightfitness subreddit [0] for good discussion and advice. They have a simple and concise starting routine [1] for people just starting out. There are also some mild
111.
by txru 7y ago
Trust me, I'm aware of the thin lines that these things ride upon. I don't care that, in particular, the Podesta emails, the DNC emails, the Brazile questions, or anything else about the Clinton campaign were leaked. It was inform
112.
by txru 7y ago
The Podesta leaks and the DNC emails came from Russia, and he must have known their intent. Either he's an active tool, or a passive and complicit one, but I think my point stands.
113.
by txru 7y ago
Revealing unknown facts is a political act. It never occurs inside a vacuum. While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just d
114.
by txru 8y ago
I would describe it as a Culture War grenade. Throw a grenade behind you, don't look back. Doesn't cost much to the thrower.
115.
by txru 8y ago
It's definitely principal agent problem all over. During WWII I think it was clearer politically because the military grew over 10x from the 30s to the peak of the war effort, and the massive budget windfalls there were extremely tempt
116.
by txru 8y ago
While Truman was still a Senator, he was head of what's today known as the 'Truman Committee'[0]. During WWII, there were tons of instances of budget bloat and shoddy manufacturing that were both too expensive to taxpayers an
117.
by txru 8y ago
It seems to me that public health concerns are a pretty reasonable line to draw. Flat earthers are weird, but they affect no one outside of themselves (how can anyone act on living on a flat earth?). More generally, effects that have the ab
118.
by txru 8y ago
A rhizome isn't just a root, it's an offshoot of a plant with the ability to create an entirely new plant. You have a point with arborescent, but it is translated from French, and from what I know of French morphology, arborescent
119.
by txru 8y ago
Is it more reasonable to think that this is the beat of a baseless drumhead conspiracy, or that influential people are genuinely changing their minds about very large issues, despite the profitability of keeping silent?
120.
by txru 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

More ›