ChoHag

Well this is the comment that gets enough points to restore the balance stripped after I railed against technical inadequacies elsewhere?

What the fuck has sexist bitching got to do with hacking? The points system on this site is a joke. 29 points? That comment does not in any way deserve 29 fucking points.

Yes.

They're not.

You're absolutely right - this place is not OK and it's shepherding its community down the same toilet as the rest of them.

Evidence suggests not.

Programmers love putting things into little boxes with labels on them. The cacophony you lament is inevitable because it mirrors the real world. Do it the way you want, or it'll be yet another Facebook or Google of the internet that gets done for you.

Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to make progress. -- Vetinari

The perspective from this woman appears to be that men need to become responsible and that things merely happen to women; passive participants in life who don't need to take responsibility for their own actions (because that's what men are for).

Much like the original article (I base my worldview on the opinions of those around me) the problem is internal (she thinks she's a princess) but the blame goes outward (nobody treats her like one).

I guess neither has learned how to be a grown up. Considering the shape society has formed recently, I'm not surprised.

That was made apparent in their documentation.

Or would have been, if they had any.

That it's not a blind spot among "everyone who works in AI" does not make it any less a blind spot.

I'm not trying to propose a "way" of anything, "secure", "decentralised" or otherwise! Don't you get it? I'm talking about the documentation.

I have no idea if this solution to the problems posed is sound because before I can even get to the source code there is no description of how or even whether it solves the fundamental problems in the cryptographic situation it describes (viz. device which cannot straightaway engage in IP communication requires to receive unsolicitated securely-encrypted messages).

Good! Say that! Then the entire protocol and its description can be reduced to "this is a cache of ephemeral public keys and messages encrypted using them".

I know that doesn't sound quite so impressive, but that's because it isn't.

I try to avoid making assumptions, including what your assumptions in your definitions of your two uses of the word "intelligence" were. If you used them coherently then that's wonderful but their definitions are not distinct outside your head. Their general (ie. dictionary/scientific) definitions are not absolute.

I'm an intelligent person. I know lots of intelligent people who are stupid and I know lots of stupid people who are intelligent. And I'm one of them, and I don't even know which one.

It doesn't come close, it's the dictionary definition.

There's nothing wrong with censorship. It's just a matter of choosing (and being able to choose (which as a father I have Views on)) which censor.

In your previous reply you used the word "intelligence" in a manner which had assumptions in it (this is, after all, how humans communicate). "AI" uses the same word with an overlapping but different set of assumptions.

No. If the section beginning "Protocol" is what you refer to as the "actual protocol description" then no, the server role does not seem clearly described in any level of detail.

To cut a long story short: Alice gives the cache, aka Mallory, a set of secret data which are implied but not proven to be able to be used by Bob to create cryptographic text which Alice can decrypt but this magic cache, aka Mallory, cannot. This document provides few hints and no detail on how we can be assured that the magic cache, A.K.A. MALLORY, is unable to make use of the secret data provided by Alice (and "promised not to be shared") to make inferrences on the crypyographic text provided by Bob.

So the "robots are going to kill us" meme is good because it makes "the rest of us" interested in the idea of AI?

If you're going to go down that path then your entire argument is moot because the definition of "intelligence" is so unclear.

Or we could have build systems that weren't even more convoluted and fragile than they were 50 years ago and just release software in the form it's supposed to be in.

I just love reading post-optimisation machine code.

> Instead, copies of the server's role in the key negotiation are stored by a centralized server for potential clients to fetch and use. This

"centralised" and "server" are just about the worst words you want to hear in the description of a system like this and yet they are just thrown in there in a flippant comment at the end of a section?

I think a more detailed description of this glorified cache is warranted.

mu

It doesn't matter when you merge, it matters how.

How long before we stop bollocking about and just call them all PUs?

So that's new in the sense that now we know about it?

You're absolutely correct.

The word "new" is entirely out of place.

That's why they're called standard INput and standard OUTput.

You're going to need these: "nother"

I've worked for companies of FB's size.

I wouldn't.

The developer does not seem so concerned that the app was removed - it can be reinstated - but that the attempts to do so are being stonewalled while a significant amount of cash hangs in the balance.

Facebook should not be silent in the face of a $160,000 problem they created.

"Speak to a lawyer" does not mean "make legal threats". It's possible and even advisable for lawyers to do other things.

Concrete examples of what?

And ignorance of what? I don't plan to teach you programming here and now.