>Are you prepared to explain this content and defend its meaning and sensibility? Please do not argue that I'm being unfair unless you are. You should ask ques

>Are you prepared to explain this content and defend its meaning and sensibility? Please do not argue that I'm being unfair unless you are. You should ask questions more often. Remember that the burden of proof is generally on the accuser in this language. >If you think it makes sense, and I'm misreading, then I'd challenge you to pick a paragraph, dig into each sentence, and try to explain to yourself what it means; and how the sum of the sentences in the paragraph communicates an idea. Why have you not done that yet? You keep getting close, but you only talk trash instead of asking questions. >It doesn't. It's just a string of generated statements. You have assumed that I am either multiple people, or a content generator. Since I am only one dude at a keyboard, you are seriously underestimating the amount of power used to write these messages. Either way, you are asserting that I am very, very efficient at writing. >It's just a string of generated statements. If you haven't seen this kind of material before, then I'd encourage you to check out papers generated by SciGen: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf (generated nonsense intended to fool the reader - it was even accepted by a journal for publication!) At this point it is clear to me that you do not have any notion of how these programs work; instead you have: a singular reference, reiterated insult, and ignorance of how those algorithms relate to the subject matter at hand. >You will probably be able to identify this content for what it is after reading other (well-done) machine-generated content. On the contrary, your content appears as such because of how often you repeat phrases which are low entropy and off-topic. >I'm qualified to comment on the content. I disagree, you would be able to ask questions in that case. >The paragraphs do not make sense. You're being taken in by a troll. Repeating yourself does not make your words more true. >If anyone wants to seriously discuss this content, start by trying to understanding how "load balancing [...] may actually induces [sic] vulnerabilities to DDOS", and how that connects in any way to the topic which is cryptography. You almost asked a question again. You should just rephrase that sentence and add the relevant punctuation mark, because you are admitting ignorance either way. It is very strange to me that you do not accept that cyberattacks and cryptography are in the same category as system administration. >When is "destruction of the hardware" ever reversible? In thermodynamics we have irreversible and reversible processes. Sometimes things can be fixed with solder, other times new parts are required. Vadim Markarov has made at least a little money from the difference. >How will an Internet attack incite atomic decay? (That's ridiculous.) I do not know of your background in ceramics engineering or particle physics, so I cannot teach you explicitly. >The words and phrases are strung together in a way that communicates no cogent idea. Your observation indicates that you are ignorant of the subject matter. It is only fair to ask questions when that happens. >They're far enough away from making real sense that they can't actually be rebutted or discussed in a direct way. All you're left with being able to say is, "That doesn't make sense", "Those concepts have nothing to do with each other", "The ideas don't follow". You should rewrite that using only the first person pronoun as a subject. It would only be factual in that case. It is malicious trolling to use the second person pronoun so as to accuse the arbitrary reader of being unable to understand. I use it to respond to the user Pyxl101 directly. >Try to take the paper I linked above and, selecting any paragraph, attempt to assess the accuracy of its claims, discuss what it's saying, or rebut the claims. Example: > Any unproven synthesis of introspective methodologies will clearly require that the well-known reliable algorithm for the investigation of randomized algorithms by Zheng is in Co-NP; our application is no different I can rebut that at face value. The phrase "well-known" is completely subjective and therefore unsuitably counterfactual for a scientific publication. The abstract reference to "algorithms...of...algorithms" is a reducto ad absurdum fallacy. >Does that look like obvious nonsense to you? Yes, but I know how to explain why. >It's written in a way to appear meaningful but it's not. You do not have a firm rationale to say so unless you can point out the fallacy, like I have. >It's just randomly generated content using statistical techniques to select words and phrases that appear nearby in a corpus of real content. The phrases "randomly generated", and "statistical techniques", are not precise enough for criticism in this context. I use much, much less power than you are proposing; unless you want to count the greenhouse gases emitted by farms which produce my food. >Nevertheless I'm sure you can pull some kind of meaning out of that and argue about it. Then you could definitely pull some meaning out and ask a legitimate question so as to further the discussion. >That's what we'd be doing by discussing this user's posts. WE would be doing so if you were not simply repeating the same insults. >I'm not trying to be mean. Then you should recognize my humanity, if only because I have a better sense of humor than you. >I thought the original posts were an interesting, clever performance with better generated material than I'd seen before. That harkens back to my original joke about your interest in recycled content. >That's misleading in the way that a magician is misleading. Magicians are usually just good chemists who are fascinated by special effects in stagecraft. You picked the wrong subject, again, referring to your own sentence through a Freudian slip. >It can be fun. You admit to finding dehumanization fun. That is malicious trolling at best, and psychopathy at worst. >The subsequent replies appearing to seriously defend the content (which by the way are not at all convincing) I can tell that you are being persuaded from the co-occurence of your insults with direct references to the subject matter. >and attack users who pointed out its nature, are something different. I am not attacking your person, you began by rejecting my human nature; and I only respond by being flippant and forgiving. The difference is that you repeat insults while I encourage you to ask specific questions. >I really don't want to contribute to trolling on HN by discussing this content further, but since you're accusing me of being unfairly dismissive Then you should avoid the use of pejoratives. >I will be glad to read and critique a short essay about how "load balancing [...] may actually induces [sic] vulnerabilities to DDOS [...] whether or not the maintenance occurs regularly" and how that relates to cryptography. Instead of asking me for a written abstract, you should just ask a specific question. If you cannot realize how database programming, cyberattacks, and cryptography occur together; then I cannot realize you have any background in applying those things in the real world. >All I can say now is that that claim doesn't make sense on its own, or the context of the paragraph, and has no apparent connection to the topic. Do I need to write another Google search query for you? >If the sentence was expanded into several paragraphs justifying its claims and elucidating the topic, then we'd actually be able to discuss it. Maybe I will make that into an academic paper and submit it for discussion. Until then, you should understand that it is extremely rude to slander someone as a bot when you fail to understand their writing.