27,061 karma · joined July 11, 2013
pub 4096R/DE0572E4 2014-12-07
Key fingerprint = 63BE 5B92 CFE0 4185 6195 9459 EB9B 1B01 DE05 72E4The simplest explanation would be that it was generated the same way as the others, but somebody mistyped a digit somewhere along the way to publishing, and therefore a solution could not be found with the assumption that the number is correct.
And most people have personal experience with how much a boss actually contributes.
(Re-post: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41801993>)
If I delegate something to somebody else, I can’t then claim that I made it, because of my “vision and execution”.
Yes, but “doing” with AI is not actually doing it, is it? Yes, something gets done, but the end result was never the point of the demoscene. The finished product was merely the proof-of-work.
Not only was it thinkable, it was common: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_self-boot...>
You could just as well say that political protest is not a thing, that it’s just vandals looking for reasons to break stuff.
It actually happened in 2016: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184>, so no ”coincidence”.
Which is wrong. He does not. You yourself cite him, at length, where he explains why he does not support it.
Oh, well, time to link stuff again, I guess:
Or a dog: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roundabout_dog&ol...>
My arguments can be summarizes as follows: 1. The usage of DNSSEC is, contrary to your claim, going up, steadily. By number of domains signed, percentage of domains signed, and usage of DNSSEC-verifying resolvers. 2. Your argument seems to be that a) The increasing number and ratio of DNSSEC signed domains do not count, only big-name domains like Google are important (since many of those are still not DNSSEC signed), but b) big-name resolvers like Google are simultaneously not important, since those all do verify DNSSEC signatures. This argument is inconsistent. 3. Linking to, and trying to prove an argument by, your own biased graph using your own software, without disclosing that it is your graph and software, is scummy.
I suspect that SEO measurement has told people that it doesn’t matter what images an article has, as long as it has some images, optimally interspersed with the text. Spending any money on getting relevant images thus becomes an unnecessary expense. Readers will still click on the article (because of the click-bait headline), and will still read (or at least scroll through) the article if the text is broken up by images by an optimal amount.
(Repost from three years ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37167492>)
What is this graph a reply to? Those graphs are for how many resolvers validating DNSSEC, not domains using DNSSEC. And here, your frequent pointing to Google and other large operators works against you, since all of them already validate DNSSEC!
Also, I find it highly questionable of you to link to a graph as part of an argument, without disclosing that you also made the software which makes the graph. (But the graph also wears its bias openly, so it’s at least honest about not being biased.)
> I don't know why you push on this statistics argument!
Notably, I did not bring it up. You brought it up, when you wrote “Adoption of DNSSEC has barely budged since [2015].” Which the graph from Verisign – which you also used to link to – shows to be utterly false.
The argument about DNSSEC with you always goes in circles. You claim that DNSSEC adoption is not rising. But the Verisign statistics show that more domains are DNSSEC signed than ever before, every day, both by numbers and percentage. Then you claim that the large masses of domains don’t count, but only the top 1% of 1% of popular domains, which are, notably, with some exceptions, not commonly DNSSEC signed. But those domains are used by Google and other infinitely large and alien actors, which have very different security models and threat models than most people with a domain name. Then you try to argue against the Verisign graph by posting a link to other graphs which claim to show “DNSSEC adoption”. But the graph you link to is not about domains, but about resolvers. However, the large and most popular resolvers are from Google, Cloudflare and the like, and all of those have done DNSSEC validation for a long time.
That comment has recieved appropriate and adequate rebuttals, so I see no need to add anything further.
> As for stats: https://dnssecmenot.fly.dev/
You said “Adoption of DNSSEC has barely budged”, and that is what the graph which I linked shows to be hilarously false. I remember that you often used to link the same graph – until it stopped showing what you wanted, that is. Now you come peddling a different, explicitly biased, graph, which only shows what the top 1% is doing, but I really don’t care about what the top %1:ers are doing. Most people are concerned with popularity in general, not what Google and Amazon are doing. Most people are not Google and Amazon, and consequently should take no lessons from them concerning their own systems.