createdapril24

6 ms·

1.
by createdapril24 2y ago
Oh interesting. No rebut of specific points or facts, just blanket disagreement? I think its hard to call a whole article "correct" or "incorrect." This article makes many assumptions, states many things as facts, and ye
2.
by createdapril24 2y ago
It needs to be noted that these drone videos are highly filtered - they are used as fundraising tools by Ukraine Armed Force units and then what "trends" are the spectacular videos (and often are out of context). So while you may
3.
by createdapril24 2y ago
I see your point and I think you have a reasonable point of view, although I don't share it because I think to have that point of view you have to make assumptions I'm not comfortable making. I think there's a lot of variable
4.
by createdapril24 2y ago
This is an interesting comment and its great to see a source. I just want to add a bit to France's threats to deploy troops to Ukraine for direct conflict. There's a serious case to be made that this is France playing a game of ch
5.
by createdapril24 2y ago
In theory, sure, but those swarm shows are pre-programmed: they aren't reacting dynamically to a (chaotic) situation on the ground and they aren't communicating with operators. There's some far-flung future in which drones ar
6.
by createdapril24 2y ago
I disagree with this other than that Ukraine will definitely lose if its backers stop supporting it. It's not really clear that Russia would surely lose the war of attrition. A realistic scenario, assuming Ukraine's sponsors susta
7.
by createdapril24 2y ago
That's partly the point yeah. Every war is an iterative set of actions and mitigations. The point I'm making is that so far the actual effect created by the strikes hasn't come close to winning the war, and its hard to projec
8.
by createdapril24 2y ago
The attacker in this case is investing significant resources and the defender isn't investing crazy amounts of resources. I see your point but I don't think the hypothetical as stated is a fair depiction of the dynamic.
9.
by createdapril24 2y ago
I disagree that failing to hit targets is a significant tactical victory. But I agree that they should continue the strike campaign. They can't do much else on the battlefield right now. It's the right thing for them to look at ar
10.
by createdapril24 2y ago
I think the article overstates its premise. The article makes an assumption that Ukraine has out-innovated Russia in terms of drones. That used to be true (in 2022-2023), with Ukraine's adapting low cost high availability commercial dr
11.
by createdapril24 2y ago
Overall oil refineries are decent targets because they are high cost and statically located and therefore difficult to defend, but Ukraine certainly wishes it had more conventional weapons at longer ranges so that it could strike deeper and
12.
by createdapril24 2y ago
I clicked through to the article. I think the title is inaccurate. The paper primarily goes into detail about the Department of Defense heavily investing in startups, incubators and silicon valley. That's the vast majority of the paper
13.
by createdapril24 2y ago
Posting from another account (home vs work computer). You can reach me at either. > The US wants to prevent China's rise to global hegemon status. It has no problem with China growing in general. The US want to prevent China's
14.
by createdapril24 3y ago
Tesla not only looks at these, they coordinate their fixes and disclosure. Tesla runs a bug bounty program https://bugcrowd.com/tesla , contracts with security research companies to audit its vehicles, has a security researc
15.
by createdapril24 3y ago
A psychological test to see how strongly the profile matches human emotional-cognition? Can we call it the Voight-Kampff Test?
16.
by createdapril24 3y ago
Temporary destruction of farmland isn't nearly at the level of a priority as fighting for territorial control of your country. Ukraine has in fact flooded farmland (outside Kiev) as a countermeasure against Russian activity. I don&#x27
17.
by createdapril24 3y ago
Here are reasons I can think of for either side of the conflict to blow the dam up. We need to note that contextually, the dam was blown up at the start of Ukraine's Counter-Offensive against the Russian positions in the south of the c
18.
by createdapril24 4y ago
I regret that Hersh's reporting relied on anonymous officials. That's not a dig on Hersh - this is the standard for journalism on these topics. As a standard it creates a deniability to any story that comes out e.g. "they pro
19.
by createdapril24 4y ago
I agree with the point about unlimited and undetectable. I think there's nuance to low latency. Here the latency the attacker is limited by the amount of parallelism they can bring to bear on e.g. PBKDF. Ultimately this is an economic
20.
by createdapril24 4y ago
It's a perspective difference. Each individual user perspective: "It is possible I can shoot myself in the foot, and also possible I will not. It is not correct to say I will shoot myself in the foot.". Outside observer persp
21.
by createdapril24 4y ago
At this point I can not edit the top comment. I would have edited with something like: "this property is not an implementation bug but a design outcome shared with any deployment of cryptography that persists ciphertext data in public.
22.
by createdapril24 4y ago
mprime1 feel free to use or alter any of the content you agree with to update the documentation for your project.
23.
by createdapril24 4y ago
I disagree with your speculation as to what most cryptographers think. Are you basing this on any data you can share? Please also see the other thread about how this secret storage system is different from a communication protocol. Namely,
24.
by createdapril24 4y ago
I really do hear what you're saying and think you're making a great point. The part that I think applies is that this is a "data at rest protocol". Communication protocols are assumed (but maybe shouldn't be - a la
25.
by createdapril24 4y ago
I agree that each person/organization should look at the security properties of a system and assess their risk against what technology is appropriate. It's entirely reasonable that as a non-targeted person with low value secrets,
26.
by createdapril24 4y ago
That's a good point, I wasn't very specific about this (trying to keep it concise). To be specific here, the con is that there isn't what the industry calls Cryptographic Agility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
27.
by createdapril24 4y ago
This has some desirable security properties, but I would like to see more analysis on the security side (not just: is secure or is not secure). Passwords: - Easy to memorize. Pro: Does not rely on a device, can be recovered if devices stole
28.
by createdapril24 4y ago
OpenAI is evaluating a technical solution to this problem by watermarking the output with small amounts of randomness, such that a series of tokens of output can be tested for having these small random variations. https://scottaa
29.
by createdapril24 4y ago
"The balanced category contained 3.04% of accounts, showing that accounts exhibiting mixed behaviour are present in the dataset." This set of accounts is actually the most interesting to me. The Pro-either-side bots are going to b
30.
by createdapril24 4y ago
Honestly I had not fact checked this. A quick internet search found lots of articles making different claims (CBS News says yes, Reddit says yes, IQT website does not list, Quora says no.) Overall there doesn't appear to be a very stro

More ›