qual

6 ms·

1.
by qual 2y ago
> I don't understand why people ask for a definition. A quick search brings up many useful definitions Note how the definition there doesn't match any of the three definitions people gave me here, and none of the three here se
2.
by qual 2y ago
Thanks for taking the time to write this out, I think it helps me understand a bit better. Every definition seems to be sort of different and personalized but I think it's beginning to coalesce into something in my mind, rather than ju
3.
by qual 2y ago
> Performative nonsense designed to appeal to emotions instead of doing something about the implied problem. (Guns and censorship, respectively.) Thanks! This helps me understand it a bit more. Sort of a synonym for "virtue signall
4.
by qual 2y ago
> Note that I am not the one who brought up the term to the conversation. Of course, but since you said you were vehemently against it, I thought you'd be the better person to give me some perspective and help me learn. > I di
5.
by qual 2y ago
(Not the person you were replying to) I'm curious what/how you define "woke culture", because the only definitions of "woke" I've ever heard are basically "thing I don't like" or "the l
6.
by qual 2y ago
> If you know the hash of some data, then you either already have the data yourself, or you learned the hash from someone who had the data. From the article, you do not need to have the data nor learn the hash from someone who had the d
7.
by qual 2y ago
> Come on, this is not surprising. Very cool that it is not surprising to you. But to others (some are even in this thread!) it is both new and surprising. They unfortunately missed your 4 year old comment, but at least they get to lear
8.
by qual 2y ago
You're presenting this as if its a new idea, but the security industry tried the above (for the majority of the time that "computer security" has been a thing) and... it didn't work! That's the whole reason public d
9.
by qual 2y ago
Could you help me understand what you are suggesting is done instead? To me, it seems like you're suggesting that vulnerabilities are just left in play until someone malicious comes along and decides to do some real damage. But that se
10.
by qual 2y ago
> Your outrage sounds disingenuous. I've read through these comment chains a few times, but I'm having a really hard time finding the "outrage", disingenuous or otherwise. Can you quote the part of the comment that d
11.
by qual 2y ago
> nobody's arguing that there are cases where you'd physically destroy a device, while cryptographic erasure of the data is not required as well. I am very explicitly saying cryptographic erasure is not required if you are fol
12.
by qual 2y ago
Sure, if you don't need to meet any compliance standards and your threat model is pretty relaxed, this is likely okay. But if your threat model is that relaxed, you can just encrypt the whole drive, toss the key, and then format the de
13.
by qual 2y ago
Wikipedia has it incorrect then, as they list it as "formerly web.com" ( "Network Solutions, LLC, formerly Web.com is an American-based technology company" ). Thanks for the clarification!
14.
by qual 2y ago
Most standards (e.g. ISO 27001, NIST 800-88) do allow for physical destruction without cryptographic erasure if the device is being shredded or incinerated (to the applicable shredding/incineration standard of particulate size/tem
15.
by qual 2y ago
Most data destruction compliance standards I am familiar with allow for cryptographic erasure when the device is encrypted prior to sensitive data being written to it (excluding some specific data-sensitivity levels). If they are strict eno
16.
by qual 2y ago
> I don't need to mind about this with encrypted data. I'm not sure if I wasn't clear or if you didn't read my comment correctly. Encrypting is not enough to prevent data recovery if data was written to disk prio
17.
by qual 2y ago
This isn't necessarily sufficient unless you encrypt the drives before any data is written to them. If any potentially sensitive data has been written to the drive prior to encryption, the only 100% method is physical destruction.
18.
by qual 2y ago
More precisely, EDR (somtimes EDTR -- endpoint detection and threat response) is one component of a robust endpoint protection platform. EPPs will consist of threat detection and response (EDR), as well as proactive prevention, vulnerabil
19.
by qual 2y ago
Oh, yeah sorry, I was thinking more along the lines of inter-galaxy communications! I definitely do not know enough about the topic to approach answering your questions, but I'd certainly be interested in knowing the answers. I really
20.
by qual 2y ago
> it would also be a demonstration of development and access to resources beyond our imagination. That's the upside [...] In a galaxy of sparse and sparingly advanced civilizations, the message might be "fear us and stay away&q
21.
by qual 2y ago
I think the "dark forest hypothesis" can apply here. The advanced alien civilization may indeed be interested in us, but still not consider it their best interest to act as soon as possible. If they decide to act, other civilizati
22.
by qual 2y ago
> Has someone calculated this out? Or is it more of a "well we need an exceedingly sensitive instrument to detect some of the most energetic events in the universe from half-a galaxy away" gut-feel? I was thinking about the en
23.
by qual 2y ago
It's mentioned both in the article, and in the comments here where someone else thought it isn't mentioned. They didn't use the acronym ("LISA"), but instead spelled out the entire thing. > Researchers are now wo
24.
by qual 2y ago
I'm not sure I see what the advantages of communicating this way would be. The amount of energy required per bit transmitted would be astounding. I feel like, while theoretically possible, it's pretty much all downsides and no ups