ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

1,553

Joined

2 yr. ago

Eh, usually less than you would expect. We're really good at math and are quite capable of making synthetic experiments where we find people who either require the procedure, or where it's been done incidentally and then inferring the results as though deliberate.

We can also develop a framework for showing benefit from the intervention, perform the intervention ethically, and then compare that to people who didn't get the intervention after the fact. With proper math you can construct the same confidence as a proper study without denying treatment or intentionally inflicting harm.

It's how we have evidence that tooth brushing is good for you. It would be unethical to do a study where we believe we're intentionally inflicting permeant dental damage to people by telling them not to brush for an extended period, but we can find people who don't and look at them.

Yup. Violating IP licenses is a great reason to prevent it. According to current law, if they get Alice license for the book they should be able to use it how they want.
I'm not permitted to pirate a book just because I only intend to read it and then give it back. AI shouldn't be able to either if people can't.

Beyond that, we need to accept that might need to come up with new rules for new technology. There's a lot of people, notably artists, who object to art they put on their website being used for training. Under current law if you make it publicly available, people can download it and use it on their computer as long as they don't distribute it. That current law allows something we don't want doesn't mean we need to find a way to interpret current law as not allowing it, it just means we need new laws that say "fair use for people is not the same as fair use for AI training".

Other than the consequences that would happen as a result, it'd be hilarious if Canada ended up doing a, I think we call them, "preemptive targeted use of force against specific individuals determined to pose an active threat to national security".

How fucked is it if another country, historically our closest ally, assassinated our president so many of us would just be like "yeah, makes sense".

My initial reaction was what the other person said, but as I was reading theirs I kinda shifted view.

Taking the mystery out of the world doesn't mean we've answered all the questions, it just means our expectation has shifted and we assume that all the dark corners have been explored.
Villages in the most remote parts of the world have Disney T-shirts.
There's no troll under the bridge.
Our stories of the unknown increasingly feature people as the monster.

It's not bad, and there's still wonder in learning about the world around us, it's just a different perspective where the default is a lot more skeptical and assumes there's an answer, even if it's not currently known.

Even conspiracy theories have shifted tone to being more disbelief in rational things than belief in irrational things.

In the grand scheme of things the money from the sale of the cars is relatively insignificant to his wealth.
The stock price dropping hurts him a lot more, and "people don't want to buy the cars" is better for the price than "people actively hate the company".

He's also going to have an increasingly difficult time getting the insurance to pay the sales price of the car when it won't sell.

I don't think they're that clever. Seriously. I think that all the "distractions" are crazy things their major supporters want (less regulation on putting raw sewage in drinking water), crazy things their policy architects want for stupid or awful reasons (ending birthright citizenship because you think America should be a white Christian nation), naked adoration for dictators because they're what running a country like a business looks like, or just the most transparent "negotiation" that burns good will because you don't understand that getting an agreement is good, and getting an agreement where the other side is happy too is better.

Threaten tariffs and wait a while to let the other side offer something to get you to not do it. Threaten to annex Greenland, and then compromise on guaranteed transit rights in their territorial waters and maybe some resource extraction agreements. Same for the Panama canal.

I have my doubts that any nation is going to accept the precedent that other nations can have authority over their use of military force.

That also sets a difficult precedent, both for soldiers and the court. If following an order to participate in an invasion of another country, while only engaging with valid military targets according to the rules of war, is a war crime if the international community later decides it wasn't justified then soldiers will become war criminals not because of their actions being brutal or unethical, but because they were insufficiently aware of the global opinion of a war.

Second, it potentially puts the court in a position where they suddenly need to imprison literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers, to say nothing of arresting and trying them. This could easily make the court appear toothless when they fail to have the power to arrest the US army, nor to actually have a place to put them.

A lot of it you can fake pretty well by putting some water on their face and a touch of whatever makeup makes your cheeks a bit rosy.

A lot of the cries the babies have are the "I asked for food and it's been three minutes and I haven't gotten it, so I'll ask louder", or "I just woke up and forgot I have hands"

I entirely agree we shouldn't do it, but I don't believe it would necessarily be an illegal order to follow.

Invading a sovereign country for overtly offensive reasons isn't against any particular military law, it's just shitty.

The president doesn't have the power to declare war, only to do everything involved in a war, but I don't think that would actually make any of the orders illegal, unless they were to explicitly do some war crimes or some such.

If your sales decline is because of a boycott by the "radical left", doesn't that mean that your product mostly appeals to ... The "radical left"?

And it was related to a policy initiative, and he didn't have price notes and feature lists.

"Business that benefits from policy initiative let's president use their stuff for a photo op during pitch tour" has a very different connotation than "president tries to sell people the car of his backer from the Whitehouse lawn".

First it goes into free fall, then it slows its drop, but the ticket starts going backwards in time.

Weird.

I used the search function to find it, since it's kinda tucked away oddly.

I can't address most of it, but under gesture navigation there's an option to swipe from the corner to invoke the assistant. I entirely agree that the power button is for "power", and I don't know why you would try to change that.

Reducing vaccinations reduces herd immunity though.

There's no polite way to say it. He's not very intelligent and has a poor grasp of the information that would lead you to see that they're effective.
If you don't trust the government or establishment and you don't have the capacity to evaluate evidence, then anything the government or established medical system says is good must be bad.

The most charitable explanation is that he, admittedly, had a worm eat part of his brain.

You can find reasons that people could be pushing vaccines that don't do anything, but that doesn't mean they actually are doing so.

I'd lean towards it being a case where routine expenses are presumed to be covered, and cancelling the card would just mean people payba different way. Setting a cap would change the definition of reasonable. I believe it also leaves existing already approved recurring transactions unchanged, since they probably don't want to get sued for suddenly not paying bills.

https://smartpay.gsa.gov/

The government doesn't run their own CC infrastructure, but they issue their own cards so cancellation is basically free. It's kinda weird to say, but the government is bigger than any bank, so it makes sense that they would do things that even small banks are capable of.

So, the size of the key doesn't directly relate to the size of the cipher, which also doesn't directly relate to security. AES is 128 bit , can have 128, 192, or 256 but keys and is currently not known to have any workable weaknesses.

Largely a cipher isn't weak if guessing the key is the only weakness, since every cipher is vulnerable to brute force. It's weak if you can figure out the message without needing the key.

That's no longer a one time pad. That's closer to a homebrew stream cipher with the weakness of having a key that you just hope no one notices.

You need a way to generate a psuedo random sequence that's synchronized. You can then use that random stream as something that works like a stream cipher.

Getting synchronized sources of random numbers like that isn't trivial, but it can be done.

To spitball a notion: get something like a small microcontroller that can drive a small screen, no wireless capabilities needed. Putting an implementation of something like the hotp algorithm on it will let you get some random data with each button press. That data can basically be used like a one time pad where you press a button each time you need more data. People decrypting the data just need to start at the same point in the sequence.

There are so many issues with this that I haven't thought of, but it's the most reasonable approximation of a pen and paper algorithm that has modern security levels and can be done in a reasonable amount of time.

Basically, you're going to want to look into stream ciphers. Since those can be done without feeding the data into them, it's possible to have a more disconnected system.

It's worth noting that against a governmental adversary, you're far more likely to be revealed via poor application of a custom crypto system than by a targeted bypass of a commonplace one.
If you're under suspicion, a cop can grab the piece of paper you did your work on out of the trash if you forgot to burn it and no decryption is required. Being physically readable, the key material can be seized and it's lost. If they have a warrant they can put a camera in your house and just record your paper.
With a cellphone, the lowest level of scrutiny that can use a backdoor that we know of would be a sealed fisa court order. Anything less official would require more scrutiny, since the NSA isn't going to send a targeted payload to the phone of a generic malcontent/domestic subversive.

Widely used crypto systems address an extremely wide array of possible attacks, most of which aren't related to the cipher but instead to issues of key management and rotation. This can give you guarantees about message confidentiality being preserved backwards in time if the key is stolen,cand only new messages being readable, as an example. (Perfect forward secrecy)

What you're looking for can be made, but you need to strongly consider if it actually makes you more secure, or less. Probably less.