infinity0

The very name of that website sounds like some sort of propaganda department. Notwithstanding that, the claims it makes are all of comparatively trivial offenses. The "top 3rd" one was awarded 10 million by a US court, peanuts compared to company revenue (e.g. a US judge awarded Apple 1 billion in damages from Samsung). The "top 2nd" one links to a blog by a Cisco officer whose only technically-specific example he could give was copying some code from strcmp.c - ooooo strcmp.c! That is going to really get an edge over the competition! LOL.

The PDF link describing details about the 1st one was broken, but it sounds like a standard case of employees leaving a company to work for a competitor (allowed under California law) and the old company going sour grapes.

Didn't bother reading 4 and 5, after how overblown 2 and 3 were.

How to Become Convincing

treat everyone like an idiot

disclaimer: only works on idiots

anti-disclaimer: that is 90% of the population, including "successful" people

TBF this is because there is no crime in Switzerland.

The guys I work for are based in Zug ("Crypto Valley"). One time I was there, I went to a supermarket to buy some beers in the evening. At the self-checkout machine, as I was trying to pay, the machine asked me in German, "how old are you", with three options, 16-, 17, 18+. The 16- and 17 was in red and the 18+ was in green, and you just had to press the green button. No ID check or staff member coming around to look at you or anything.

I ditched GNOME in 2015 for XFCE and haven't looked back. Their attitude is pompous and atrocious. Send them to the bins of history where they belong.

  Fck GNOME devs coming straight from tha underground
  A young hacker got it bad cos he's out
  of other FOSS choices so devs think
  They have the authority to break their reverse dependencies
  Fck that shit, cause I ain't the one
  For a brainwashed developer to be lecturing on
  "If you don't like it, just don't upgrade"
  what and use unsupported software with no security updates?
  Fcking with me cos I'm not an average user
  So I gotta put up with the preferences of pretentious designers
  Rearranging my workflow, oversimplifying their product
  Thinking every user is a fcking dumb idiot
  You'd rather see, me wasting time
  Than take responsibility for your poisonous party line.
  Pwn a GNOME dev with an 0-day
  and when I'm finished, fck with GTK
  to pad a hundred pixels inside every border
  yeah enjoy your own fcking bread and water!
  I don't know if they NSA
  Slowing hackers down, and wasting screen space
  And on the other hand, without FOSS they can't get jobs
  Cause they just failed at trying to be Steve Jobs.
  Dumbing down the ecosystem, training user ignorance,
  Spitting on those who built our community in the first place!
  Anonymous will rewrite
  Every application with a GNOME design
  Just cause I think more mathematically
  Punk designers are afraid of me!
  HUH, a young hacker on the warpath
  And when I'm finished, they'll wish they'd merged my patch
  when they had a chance, but now it's too late
  Yo J, GNOME's been replaced.

  Example of scene one

  [GNOME Dev] Pull up your goddamn debugger right now!
  [Hacker] Aww shit, now what the fuck they changing their API for?
  [GNOME Dev] Cause I feel like it! Now sit the fuck down for 16 hours and patch yo fucking software
  [Hacker] Man, fuck this shit
  [GNOME Dev] Aight smartass, I'm breaking yo entire desktop!

Sure, not all bugs are kernel bugs though.

Automatic proof checkers still have bugs in them. However, one nice characteristic is that, since its algorithms are so general, i.e. about the language rather than about the problem you're solving (e.g. sorting), any bugs in the checker are either so common they hit every problem solution and are easily discovered and fixed, or so rare that it affects no real-world problem solutions.

Source?

Except it's not really private; some random big company sees everything you do inside your house.

Oh wait TVs do that now. I guess the real world evolved to be more like social networks...

I just read it ironically, lol

As I mentioned in the other comment, the creation of a Debian source package has a lot of barriers, some of them good and for quality purposes, some of them bad and due to historical cruft. Documentation is also not very newbie-friendly. The actual automatic reproduction of a binary from a source package is simple - `dpkg-buildpackage`.

The tradeoff you get with other distributions being quick, is less quality assurance. Also, Debian still has a policy of working on 10 architectures, and this slows things down significantly sometimes. The other distributions you mentioned don't have this constraint.

It should be noted that none of this article applies to actual development that goes on in the Debian distribution from https://www.debian.org

Official Debian development, being FOSS oriented, proceeds from Debian source packages instead, and one never creates a binary package from scratch as described in the article. Instead, we use `dpkg-buildpackage` and other similar tools. The creation of the source package is the hard part, having to follow all the aspects of Debian policy, including technical matters around quality.

> The goal is to define a data type by cases, where one can add new cases to the data type and new functions over the data type, without recompiling existing code, and while retaining static type safety.

Not sure what real problem this is solving. In practise you don't just add new cases, you delete some cases, and you re-add different cases later. Two different people might add two different cases in parallel with each other. Oops, now you have to re-compile anyway.

The article is obsolete and should be deleted, there is ApplicativeDo these days.

A key foundational fallacy of modern "dogmatic scientism" (for lack of a better phrase) is the fallacy fallacy - just because something doesn't have a scientific or otherwise formally-theoretic explanation, doesn't mean it's false. This is why empiricism was and remains so key in pushing technological progress, contributing to the Enlightenment and the efficacy of the scientific method. As opposed to "dogmatic scientism" where scientifically-oriented religious zealots denounce techniques for merely the reason that we don't properly understand how they work, in the false belief that they are promoting science or being scientific.

(A variant of this is where they denounce something for merely the reason that it seems to contradict another scientific theory, but in fact that theory only applies in a different context with different assumptions, and there is no actual contradiction.)

"The Science Delusion" is a very good pro-scientific book that covers various other examples of these topics.

Thanks, shame it got flagged for no good reason.

That discussion notes the lethal dose to be around 3-5g and the couple as having had a teaspoon which would be around this mass.

However, this theintercept.com source is the only one I could find that mentions a teaspoon as being their quantitative dose - even the original NBC report didn't give a specific number. So I wonder how reliable this information is.

It feels like everyone someone voices an opinion about GTK3 explaining why they don't like it, some GTK3 fanboy has to chime in questioning the opinion and implying it isn't rational. Yeah, this makes me want to stick with GTK3 even less.

People don't have to explain their preferences in a rational way, they will just switch away from GTK3. It's cheaper.

Successful developers will try to interpret these users' feedback in a self-critical, introspective and positive way, and tweak their product based on the feedback. As opposed to continually challenging the giver of the feedback to explain their opinion in more detail, as if by repeatedly digging deeper and deeper into an opinion, you will at some point find some fundamental logical contradiction in their views that will make them re-evaluate their life philosophy on why they just don't like GTK3.

I for one think the two opinions given above are perfectly clear ("GTK3 is becoming very GNOME3 specific", "As a user, I don't want them") and can't see why further clarification is being requested. If you really need clarification on these perfectly clear opinions, it is your problem.

It takes a few days to confirm a trend so I'd wait until late next week before drawing any conclusions.

Lots of people in these coronavirus threads have been confusing "confirmed cases" as reported by various countries, vs the actual number of cases, and using this to propose various conspiracy theories about governments downplaying or suppressing information about the situation.

Here is an interesting analysis including analyses done by Chinese health officials to estimate the actual number of cases in the past on a given day, based on symptom data collected from confirmed cases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCa0JXEwDEk

Other countries should follow suit.

Chart:

https://miro.medium.com/max/5376/1*r-ddYhoUtP_se6x-NOEinA.pn...

Commentary:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...

> This is one of the most important charts.

> It shows in orange bars the daily official number of cases in the Hubei province: How many people were diagnosed that day.

> The grey bars show the true daily coronavirus cases. The Chinese CDC found these by asking patients during the diagnostic when their symptoms started.

To be precise, even the grey bars are an underestimate of the true cases in reality, since they would exclude unreported cases as some people were turned away from hospitals. (In the UK they are advising people with non-severe symptoms to stay at home, where they can't be tested.)

It's encouraging that a retrospective analysis confirmed that the Wuhan lockdown had the intended effect however, to reduce the true spread of cases.

It's by definition. If you can see 3 ducks in your house, that means there are 3 or more ducks in your house including the ones you didn't see.

Everybody knows the real number of cases is greater than the confirmed number of cases, everywhere, regardless of what country is reporting the numbers.

To be fair, western authorities had an even longer amount of time before the virus spread to their countries, and are doing about as well or slightly worse than the Chinese authorities did even given this initial suppression.

I dunno man. Sports commentators deal with hundreds of teams all the time, I don't see them mistaking the owner vs manager of a club, and they would be laughed at if they did, even (especially?) the lay / hobbyist ones.

Also, at the very top of their website it says "a specialized intelligence website written by experts", and in the sidebar they list their qualifications - so they apparently want to claim they are not laypersons. Lol, but you are trying to claim it?

Granted it's pretty subjective, so whatever. I don't think my standards for this topic are much different from other people's standards for other topics with similar shapes.

It was there like 20 minutes ago, quoting her saying (paraphrasing, from my memory) "We'll deal with this when we have all the facts". Maybe one of the editors is watching this thread.

Making that mistake for a layperson is understandable sure, but a website about intel, you have to lol. Probably why they fixed it up so quickly.

"We're already ahead, we don't need to run any faster, we'll use our energy to do pointless things like spy on everyone instead".

Don't let me stop you thinking that but I'll keep running faster, thanks.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter that you can read everyone's messages when your economy is growing at 1%, the economy of your supposed "friend" that you're selling the messages to is growing at 2%, and the economy of the people whose messages you're reading is growing at 6-7%.

Maybe they should have used the money to develop 5G instead, lol.

> Switzerland’s Prime Minister, Simonetta Sommaruga

For a supposed website about intelligence, strange of them to use the phrase "Prime Minister" to describe the President of Switzerland (who actually is just a figurehead with the same power as the other members of the 7-member Federal Council).

See also https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Geometry

> A level 8A experience can be described as the feeling of being exposed to a seemingly infinite mass of geometry comprised entirely of innately comprehensible representations which are perceived to simultaneously convey every internally stored concept, memory, process, and neurological structure stored within the mind. [..]

That is some dope Original Research right there, lol

That's why it's important to have positive stories like this one, the media is only focusing on the negative ones even though they only count for < 1% of the real situations.

It is impressive, Wuhan has 11 million people. Would you have done better?

> There is no trust that the reported numbers are reflective of the situation on the ground - in fact it is likely to be the tip of the iceberg.

The numbers are confirmed test cases, which will always be an underestimate of the true situation regardless of the government supplying the numbers. There's no indication to suggest that it's the "tip of the iceberg" especially since the "current case" numbers have been consistently decreasing for the past several weeks.

It rather seems that you've been so convinced by the sheer amount of anti-Chinese-government-propaganda, that even positive facts can't change your prejudice that everything they do is negative.

That's like saying "being a vehicle is how a lot of cars work"; the reasons on why the cipher is flawed are a bit more specific than that.

As for the elitist arrogance, whilst I'm sure these exist in other security-related interactions across the world, the interaction that's the subject of this thread involves plenty of polite comments that

- point out author's lack of background knowledge - refer to short-cut theorems that help evaluate a cipher, implying the author should learn about these theorems - explicitly tell the author to learn about these theorems

In response to this, the very first reply the author gives is "It almost sounds like you have had your soul crushed by bureaucracy over the years and have lost all passion for this field. I hope that's not true."

Yeah, however much "arrogant" you interpret the security people in this thread to be, it's only fair to interpret the OP (Mark McCarron) to be 2-3x as arrogant.

>> Designed to be as secure as a one-time pad,

> That immediately shows that the person writing it doesn't know cryptography. You simply can't get the security of one-time pad [..]

Talking about a one-time pad at all in the context of making something actually secure for internet usage, shows that the talker doesn't know about cryptography.

A one-time pad having "perfect security" is only true in the context of a particular security model that doesn't generally hold true on the internet - one where the adversary cannot change the ciphertext whilst it is in transit.

Under a more realistic security model, we need a message authentication code or some other equivalent, to protect against adversaries changing the ciphertext. It's a well-known theorem of modern cryptography that in fact if you don't have secure authentication under this model, then you cannot achieve secure privacy. In other words, your ciphertext has to be bigger than the plaintext for security on the internet.

(There is in fact a one-time-pad equivalent for MACs where your key is the length of the plaintext and the ciphertext ends up being several multiple times the length of the plaintext, but crackpots when making security arguments about "one-time pads" generally aren't referring to this and aren't even aware of the existence of this. It's a relatively unknown construction and nobody really talks about it in the context of serious modern cryptography.)