> A black hole itself (the singularity) is 1 dimensional - a single infinitesimal point.
A point is 0-dimensional. A line is 1-dimensional.
The singularity is 1-dimensional (more precisely, a ring) if the black hole is rotating. [1]
224 karma · joined August 2, 2018
A point is 0-dimensional. A line is 1-dimensional.
The singularity is 1-dimensional (more precisely, a ring) if the black hole is rotating. [1]
Why would that be a benefit? It means more taxpayer money is literally going to waste.
That should be up to the people, not the government.
Whoever is angrily downvoting this is welcome to explain why they think allocating brainpower to the IRS is the best way to maximize welfare.
Nice strawman. Chinese government censorship is not a "trifle".
> a relatively free society (which of course China isn’t)
You said it yourself.
This is control by an authoritarian state, not by parents. But you already knew that, didn't you?
As a Venezuelan, I’m curious to know what you mean by this.
Did you even read my question? Linking to C-16 is not explaining how “his arguments against C-16” are “transphobia”.
> haven't even bothered to mention any specific ideas from his work
Neither have you, which is what the people you’re referring to are objecting to.
> I've described the content of Peterson's work
You’ve done no such thing. Not at any level above name-calling, anyway.
An element must meet four qualities to stand alone as a premium currency... First, it can't be a gas — gases simply are not practical for currency exchange... Second, it can't be corrosive or reactive... Third, it can't be radioactive. [Fourth, it] must be rare enough to be valuable, but not so rare that it's impossible to find.
That brings us to five elements: rhodium, palladium, platinum, silver and gold. Although silver has been used for currency, it tarnishes easily, so it's out. Rhodium and palladium were discovered only in the 1800s, so they'd have been of no use to early civilizations. That leaves gold and platinum. Platinum, however, has a melting point around 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit (about 1,600 degrees Celsius), which could only be attained in a modern furnace, so early civilizations would not have been able to conveniently shape it into uniform units.
[1] https://www.livescience.com/32863-gold-best-element-money.ht...
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-ch...
You have given no reason to believe this.
You're asking me to prove a negative. I merely said I doubted you knew about receipt freeness because you didn't even mention it as an obvious counterpoint to your claim, which is a reasonable conclusion. If you consider that an “extremely aggressive attack”, fine. It is easy for you to prove me wrong, you just have to point out the comment in question.
In the meantime, I'll continue to assume you either had no idea what receipt freeness was, or deliberately created the false impression that a verifiable voting system cannot be receipt free.
> I wasn't about to go 10 rounds of "but you could do X and then be broken by Y".
You've failed to show that receipt freeness introduces something else that fundamentally "breaks" which wasn't in the original system, despite repeatedly claiming this is so (see also "They fix this issue and introduce others", a claim made with absolutely zero evidence).
> So here's how I attack it if I'm just a skilled hacker working alone:
So you just assume you can achieve all of this for any e-voting system. Fantastic argument. Really convincing. You may as well have said "Here's how I would attack and infiltrate banking networks or current voting systems surreptitiously. See, we can never trust either of these!" That's just laughable.
> At the end there's a very high chance your election is now fully distrusted and the country is in chaos. Even if it doesn't work 100% of the time it only takes one or two successful events globally for people to distrust these systems, whichever they are.
Clearly wrong as evinced by Estonia's voting system, even in the face of its demonstrated security flaws.
> The scary thing about what I just described is that plenty of it is indistinguishable from what is already happening in some cases in US elections today.
...and it hasn't led to the collapse of the voting system.
> If there are no advantages why do it?
Are you asking what the advantages of e-voting are?
> The difference for eCommerce and eBanking is that under any of those attack scenarios you just go to the bank branch and sort things out, including reverting transactions.
You're assuming banks are always aware of attacks, which is just not true.
> At this point it's on you.
It's not "on me". It's been mathematically proven that a system can possess these properties simultaneously. For example, see
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-24691-6_...
Feel free to point out where you previously discussed receipt freeness. And if you did, then why didn't you mention it in your comment, which gives the false impression that any verifiable voting system cannot be receipt free?
> The kinds of attacks you'd use against them are not to break the crypto. They're to break the usage of the system by common citizens and eliminate all trust from the election.
You're going to have to be more specific about what you mean.
> the process has to at the same time avoid leaking who you're voting for
This is called receipt freeness, which we just discussed.
> provide accurate counts
This is called universal verifiability, which is also perfectly attainable by e-voting systems.
> be trusted by the average citizen
You've provided no reason to think that citizens will never trust e-voting systems. The very article of this thread provides a counterexample, and it's not even the most secure.
> Those properties are simply not possible
This is just flat-out wrong. It is perfectly possible to have all of the above properties simultaneously.
You knew it but didn’t mention it as an obvious neutralizer of your objection, in the context of a discussion about possibility (“you could”)? I doubt that.
> I'm willing to provide either a breach or a denial of service for any digital or online voting system you care to describe.
There are many systems in the literature. What are your credentials in this field? Are you a cryptanalyst?
> Voting is however one of the few situations where the lack of sophistication of pen and paper works in your favor significantly.
This is as myopic as saying “E-commerce and e-banking are some of the few situations where the lack of sophistication of pen and paper works in your favor significantly. The demands of e-commerce and e-banking are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online systems.”
Not necessarily. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19355603
Not necessarily. It is possible to have verifiability and receipt freeness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_sy...
> The demands of voting are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online voting.
Clearly you need to do more research before making such sweeping claims.
However, the overwhelming consensus of the economics profession remains that while these arguments are theoretically valid under certain assumptions, these assumptions do not usually hold and should not be used to guide trade policy. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the Harvard Economics Department, has said: ″Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards.″
It's sad to have to rehash this every time people on HN who've never studied economics figure they're experts on the subject, much like happens with climate change denialists, so I'll have to repeat it again. There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Even economists who lean interventionist like Paul Krugman strongly agree, and have tried time and time again to explain why free trade is a good thing to an ignorant public. It is shameful that so many people feel obligated to opine strongly on a subject which they don't understand, causing bad policies to be enacted.
Protectionism makes society worse off. It makes the world poorer.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actuall...
[2] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2004/09/...
[3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117691
[4] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade
I edited it out because I find it, for the most part, irrelevant. I'd rather live in a world where everyone is better off to different extents than one where everyone is equally poor and miserable, as in post-reform vs. pre-reform China. Do you prefer the latter?
> It seems clear enough, therefore, that the financial policies of the last 40 years have at best not helped, and have made some things worse.
Non sequitur.
> That's not a straw man.
Weighing the costs and benefits by analyzing the bigger picture is not "ignoring problems affecting hundreds of millions of people". That's just plain stupid.
> On an article about US economic policy...
Proof that you didn't read the article, because it discusses other countries and international trade.
> Beat claimed that '80s US economic policy had failed
Where did beat say "US" in their comment?
balanced1 input =
let partialsums = scanl (+) 0 $ map (\x -> if x == '(' then 1 else -1) input
in all (>= 0) partialsums && last partialsums == 0
balanced2 = balanced' 0 where
balanced' count [] = count == 0
balanced' count ('(':rest) = balanced' (count + 1) rest
balanced' count (')':rest) = balanced' (count - 1) rest && count > 0
balanced = balanced' [] where
balanced' stack [] = null stack
balanced' stack ('(':rest) = balanced' ('(':stack) rest
balanced' stack ('[':rest) = balanced' ('[':stack) rest
balanced' stack ('{':rest) = balanced' ('{':stack) rest
balanced' stack (')':rest) = head stack == '(' && balanced' (tail stack) rest
balanced' stack (']':rest) = head stack == '[' && balanced' (tail stack) rest
balanced' stack ('}':rest) = head stack == '{' && balanced' (tail stack) rest
balanced' stack (_:rest) = balanced' stack rest