In case you were wondering if ICE had transitioned to full-on Gestapo, they are now literally using "Papers please!" as an excuse for fucking up your whole day and squeezing a few more dollars out of you!
In 2023, Signal was the first mainstream messenger to enable post-quantum cryptography. We’re still ahead of the (elliptical) curve, implementing a new hybrid PQ ratchet ensuring Forward Secrecy & Post-Compromise Security even in a post-quantum world. signal.org/blog/spqr/
We are excited to announce a significant advancement in the security of the Signal Protocol: the introduction of the Sparse Post Quantum Ratchet (SPQR).
@benroyce @erikcats For the record, we do not have quantum computers yet, nor do we know when or even if we'll have them for any outside-the-lab purposes.
Whether you saw a quantum computer featured in a tech news blog post, or that Black Mirror episode "Joan is Awful", the chandelier-like look may have inspire...
Breaking the Enigma wasn't really smooth sailing. It had its ups and downs during the most critical years, but those can't be summarized in 100 words. Also the Germans helped by overestimating the strength of the Enigma and thus neglecting some measures that would have been in their interest.
The Venona project is also instructive. It achieved a lot and yet decrypted a small part of all intercepted messages.
@vnikolov @jwcph @erikcats the great weakness of all fascists is their arrogance and hubris. when they surround themselves with yes men and push lies over truth, they fall for their own bullshit about "superiority"
Also, I would even avoid saying that, if actually made feasible, quantum computers will make hard mathematical problems "easy"; rather, I would say that they would solve them quickly, and much more so than currently imaginable with classic computer architecture. The difference in terminology has to do with how one actually counts the operations that need to be performed in order to solve the problem. Additionally, there is the problem of errors, but let's not get to technical (yet).
@benroyce @jwcph @erikcats well, one of the problems is making sure the errors stay within certain limits of acceptability (stay "bounded", as we say). There are also other issues, such as hardware scalability, but these will become less important as technology progresses. Just think how much computers have advanced in the last 40 years!
There's also the fact that every time so far that some company has claimed "quantum supremacy" and boasted of having "solved" a certain precisely-chosen problem multiple orders of magnitude faster than possible with a classical computer, a different set of researchers have looked at that problem, reframed it, and come up with a way to solve it in comparable time using a classical computer.
For most purposes, the best you can realistically hope to do is make it enough trouble to discourage the casual thief, because the next target along is easier.
If large-scale quantum computers turn out to be viable, certain classes of problems are going to be impacted more than others.
It is not true that "all" encryption will stop working, even for generous definitions of "all" and "stop working".
It's certainly bad enough, however. And we now have cryptographic algorithms which are believed to be resistant to *both* classical computer and quantum computer attacks. Which is good.
@benroyce I'm not an expert either. My understanding is that for example modular multiplication math (which is used for almost all classical public key cryptographic algorithms, both encryption and signing) is potentially highly impacted by QC; but much math used for symmetric-key encryption and for hashing is significantly less affected. E.g., the effective security of AES-256 is reduced to ~ AES-128, BUT that also assumes QC operations are similar to classical operations.
@benroyce @rhempel @mkj @erikcats 4K computers were the mid/late 70s. For micro computers at least, like the Altair 8800/Commodore PET. For minicomputers that's 60s level, and for mainframes 50s.
Bottom line, I guess, is that there are plenty of nuances here which I am happy to let people who know the stuff much better than I do handle; but it's not quite as clear-cut as "the whole world will break" as it is sometimes presented.
There's a number of detail assumptions which may or may not turn out to be true which impact the actual result. But taking a cautionary stance, we do know that the risk is non-trivial and thus taking mitigative steps is good.
@mkj @benroyce @erikcats well, one other problem is that of the immense number of continuous parameters needed to describe the state of an actual quantum computer. And then along come papers such as this one journals.aps.org/prresearch/ab…
This is really cool! And the way I see it, it has the potential to address the problem above by providing a general way to discretize quantum systems. So I guess we'll have to wait and see how things work out.
Personally, I'm quite sceptical about the whole quantum hype, but I'm keeping an open mind.
@paraw Oh, there is a *LOT* to this which doesn't fit in 500 characters! And like I said, I'm not an expert. But we DO know that this stuff is possible in principle, even if not in practice currently; and we DO now have primitives which provide protection. Since it's hard to change the past, taking a cautionary stance would mean that we move toward a setup which provides protection while not stripping us of protection, while there's time to do it less stressfully.
To my mind, quantum computers these days are maybe perhaps at the level of EDSAC, ENIAC or their ilk in classical computer terms: just barely usable for more than proof of concept. No one familiar only with those would imagine them being developed into a smartwatch yet here we are. We can see that there are certain classes of problems, widely relied upon, where quantum computing significantly changes the rules of the game. Not a crisis, but worth attention.
As mentioned elsewhere, we don't have quantum computing but one big issue is that some people are banking on it existing in the future and are hoovering up encrypted data that they will later be able to crack if they are correct so switching to post-quantum cryptography early protects against that possibility.
@benroyce @erikcats Michael Chrichton wrote about this (Prey? maybe). One of the (fictional) points he made was that brute force had been pushed to high levels using quantum computing. But the Gov't continued to push the idea that they couldn't decode high level encryption so that 'bad players' would continue to use encryption that had been compromised.
@benroyce @zakalwe @hotelzululima @jwcph @erikcats true story: a while ago, I briefly worked on a tetrazole compound. The goal was to better understand a certain molecular mechanism in plants. The compound was synthesised by a student, who is one of the best chemists I've met (think Walter White sans drugs). He did it during a weekend because, in his own words, "if something messed up, it would have blown up the university, and at least it would have been empty."
My co-author on one of my books once attended a weekend party at which they were, among other things, using liquid nitrogen to make ice cream.
After a while, the liquid nitrogen ran out.
Sometime AFTER that point, one of the attendees showed up with a freshly-made batch of ice cream, inviting people to try it. Those who KNEW the nitrogen had run out immediately called a stop and said, "Wait, wait, what exactly did you use to make this?"
Bitcoin takes a finite quantum of entropy defined by difficulty scaling the nonce space and through proof-of-work transforms it into conserved thermodynamic memory: satoshis, a quantum of structure and value. The result is a computed quantum of time: the block.
It is the most literal definition of “quantum” and of “computing.” Energy beneath the physical mirage reduces to discrete quanta at the scale of Planck time. Bitcoin instantiates that process at human scale.
A quantum without absolute scarcity is unintelligible. Physics drifts when it defines quanta without bounds. Measurement is not a convention, it must be tied to a scarce denominator. No such scarce denominator existed before Bitcoin, thus no true measurement existed before Bitcoin.
“A measure of any kind, of any thing, is not a thing at all, nor is a measure found in nature. A measure is an agreed-upon standard of measure.” Except Bitcoin’s measurement is not an agreement. It is a thing. It is conserved energy, crystallized into memory. It’s not just an
... show more
Bitcoin takes a finite quantum of entropy defined by difficulty scaling the nonce space and through proof-of-work transforms it into conserved thermodynamic memory: satoshis, a quantum of structure and value. The result is a computed quantum of time: the block.
It is the most literal definition of “quantum” and of “computing.” Energy beneath the physical mirage reduces to discrete quanta at the scale of Planck time. Bitcoin instantiates that process at human scale.
A quantum without absolute scarcity is unintelligible. Physics drifts when it defines quanta without bounds. Measurement is not a convention, it must be tied to a scarce denominator. No such scarce denominator existed before Bitcoin, thus no true measurement existed before Bitcoin.
“A measure of any kind, of any thing, is not a thing at all, nor is a measure found in nature. A measure is an agreed-upon standard of measure.” Except Bitcoin’s measurement is not an agreement. It is a thing. It is conserved energy, crystallized into memory. It’s not just an “agreement”, because truth does not care about your opinion.
Bitcoin is the only system to prove that a quantum of entropy can resolve into a conserved quantum of structure: auditable, irreversible, and true.
🤔 FIELD Theory in Depth: Fake Particle-Fantasy pseudo-science of Quantum & RelativityIF YOU LIKE THESE VIDEOS, YOU CAN MAKE A SMALL DONATION VIA PAYPAL LINK...
🤔 FIELD Theory in Depth: Fake Particle-Fantasy pseudo-science of Quantum & RelativityIF YOU LIKE THESE VIDEOS, YOU CAN MAKE A SMALL DONATION VIA PAYPAL LINK...
I-told-you-sos are considered to be preening, so how do you make people remember what you said and see the proof so they change their minds without doing it? This was all predictable, and predicted....
We’ve been on a death march toward the complete disintegration of every principle that ostensibly animates our democratic republic for decades. Both sides have helped keep us on the path.
Lol, I actually switched to GNU/Linux when Windows was just a MS/DOS application. Windows 3.11 had just released when I began using tutorials on usenet to build my own GNU/Linux installation. X Server was another story. It took literally weeks to download all the code successfully and For a very small while I used a bare bones X Server with no DE or WM. Boot magazine (now Wired) distributed a stripped down copy of Debian on their complimentary CD on one Issue and I finally got to try out Gnome and KDE which were both in their infancy. At first KDE had my attention, then as both matured, as I pretend I did as well, I learned to love the elegancy of simplicity and now I favor Gnome.
So when Israel is finished killing all the AmalekitePalestinian men, women, and children, is the plan to keep going and kill all the camels and donkeys?
Can't sell electric motorcycles to "real" bikers? Put a whole-ass extra non-working IC motor on the electric motor's output so e-bikers can throw away 50% of their charge on making everyone think they're just as selfish and obnoxious as regular bikers!
Yamaha is developing a special unit for electric motorcycles that is designed to generate the typical noises and vibrations of combustion engines. The new patent aims to transfer the classic riding experience to electric vehicles.
In Greek mythology, the priestess Cassandra was cursed by Apollo to see completely accurate visions of the future, but never to be believed by anyone she revealed them to.
My desperately-flailing-for-relevance corporate masters have decided that we need to be using an entirely new "GenAI" platform. This morning, in a meeting, I accidentally let slip what I was calling it in my head: "HAL 2.OhGod"
The reception was *shockingly* warm...
Did I mention I've got a new job-title again? Or that they never bothered to inform me?
So... I guess we won't be sending our warriors to places because someone stands to make money any more? You know, so you won't be sending them to die for the selfish benefit of a corrupt dictatorial government?
We officially live in a dictatorship. This illegal, unconstitutional bullshit will let them use anything you've *ever* said that could be construed as being a negative statement on Christianity, our government, or capitalism is now their tool to watchlist you and use it to punitively exclude you from air/train/bus travel, banking, credit, government benefits, education, etc...
Just in case you find yourself naming a database or other system, don't call it "QS" if there will be anyone from the deep south trying to pronounce it. Unless, that is, you want to spend a meeting listening to people snort and mute themselves after every reference to the "Cute-ass" database....
With our representatives calling themselves our leaders and the revolving door they have with Big Everything(Trillion and Billion dollar incorporations) between being a politician or a lobbyist it really does not matter what flavor you are. They are all politicians, hence they are all less than desirable human beings. Though I will continue to treat them as human beings even though they refuse to behave like one. I do not due this because I feel they have earned it or are entitled to it. I do it because I will not compromise my own ethics due to their lack of any.
This satirical blog post really illustrates the problem with a lot of technical writing. Amazing technical writing is so good and then everything else reads like this
“Hello! I am a developer. Here is my relevant experience: I code in Hoobijag and sometimes jabbernocks and of course ABCDE++++ (but never ABCDE+/^+ are you kidding? ha!) and I like working with Shoobababoo and occasionally kleptomitrons.
I used to be a technical author (I have a CS degree and I'm now a full-time novelist) and this EXACTLY reflects the state of technical writing today, i.e., it's mostly written grudgingly by people who flunked English in high school and would prefer to monologue at a webcam for YouTube.
(Writing a tutorial for on-boarding new users is deathly difficult: you can't reliably reconstruct their state of naivety in your own head if you've been using the product for >1 year.)
@cstross we had a semi retired colleague with a long history in tech before it was tech. He'd written manuals for nuclear devices, that sort of thing. So we'd hand him the draft and the laptop and say "Nick, setup the robot will you?". Always eye-opening.
@grumpydad I just want a Linux distro (or UNIX-oid OS—looking at you, macOS!) that refuses to use any software that doesn't have a properly formatted well-written man(1) page to Brian Kernighan or Dennis Ritchie's standards.
@cstross @dahukanna For my GitHub repos I ask Claude to write a human testing guide that shows step by step how to run it, including the expected output. It usually finds a few bugs and things in wrong directories.
@MitchW @skinnylatte Oh, I ran into Robert Sheckley in 1996 when I was visiting a tech startup in London. He was working as an author there. (Admittedly it was TDV, which was owned by one Douglas Adams ...)
We literally saw/heard him say, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," ("Nice station you have there. It would be a shame if something was to ... happen to it...") and that Disney must "take action" on Kimmel "or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
FCC chairman unconvincingly claims he never threatened ABC station licenses Brendan Carr would like you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…
Given what I *really* do all day as an engineer, an uninformed observer could be forgiven for concluding that I have a degree in Numbering and Naming Things...
"Investigators have reason to believe that the majority of funds came from criminal sources."
Oh, really? what's the reason?
"This type of platform, which doesn’t require users to identify themselves to make an account, hides the source of funds. This is a common tactic used by criminal organizations"
So your reason to believe the funds are illegal is that private citizens don't want you to know their business?
"The transaction data obtained from the platform will be analyzed and charges may follow. The investigation is ongoing."
So you had *nothing*, and decided to go on a fishing expedition? Got it. I guess cops everywhere are fascist assholes, not just here in the US.
So I've been posting about these new cars and their "secure" door handles, and how they're killing people. Everyone has pooh-poohed me. They *had* to save the world by buying Teslas. Well:
When the left was in charge, they wanted to police "hate speech" as they defined it. Now the right is in charge, and they want to police "hate speech" as they define it. "Hate speech" means saying anything the regime currently in power doesn't like...
Attorney General Pam Bondi: "There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society...We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."
Last week this man stated that the current regime could kill any terrorist they liked with no due process. Today, he revealed that the government believes it can designate any American citizen as a terrorist, also without due process.
Hey, anyone have any experience with an asset management firm in SF called 'TPG'? Apparently they just bought me, and I'd love to know what kind of corporate raiders they might be...
Hey, anyone have any experience with an asset management firm in SF called 'TPG'? Apparently they just bought me, and I'd love to know what kind of corporate raiders they might be...
"A 2021 report from Chainalysis revealed that in 2019 about 2.1% of all cryptocurrency transactions accounted went into criminal activity. This is roughly $21.4 billion in transaction volumes. Meanwhile, the UN estimates that between 2% and 5% of global GDP (that is between $1.6 and $4 trillion in fiat currency) goes into illicit financing and money laundering every year. To paint a clearer picture, criminal activity using fiat currencies is 160 times more than its crypto counterpart."
Avi Schwartz 🇺🇸🇮🇱🇺🇦
in reply to Signal • • •Baharul Islam
in reply to Signal • • •ada
in reply to Signal • • •Waiting for the replies to turn into another tech-Karen show...
No, wait. They already did.
Sören
in reply to Signal • • •bonoky 🇬🇧
in reply to Signal • • •Erik
in reply to Signal • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to Erik • • •#encryption depends upon basically really hard math problems to work
this has worked well for a long time
but now we have #quantumComputing
while it is in its infancy it makes really hard math problems really easy
so that means in some time, encryption will stop working (all banking and finance, all military comms, etc: it can be hacked)
luckily there are encryption schemes that are resistant to quantum computing
but they have to be implemented
#Signal implemented it
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 reshared this.
Erik
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to Erik • • •😁
JWcph, Radicalized By Decency
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •@benroyce @erikcats For the record, we do not have quantum computers yet, nor do we know when or even if we'll have them for any outside-the-lab purposes.
Good encryption is never a bad idea though 😊
youtube.com/watch?v=Lhou8I2w_L…
Quantum Computers Look Like Chandeliers. This is Why.
YouTubeBen Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to JWcph, Radicalized By Decency • • •the problem is in #military #quantumComputing R&D, there's definitely advances we're completely unaware of
#turing (and mathematicians from #poland who don't get enough attention on the topic) broke #germany's #enigma machines in #WWII
but it wasn't until 1974 that the world got its first real details about #bletchleyPark
so you can be almost certain #china, #usa, #europe: somewhere some team is on the crux of or has already broken high level #encryption
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 reshared this.
Vassil Nikolov | Васил Николов
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •Possible, but maybe far from certain.
Breaking the Enigma wasn't really smooth sailing.
It had its ups and downs during the most critical years,
but those can't be summarized in 100 words.
Also the Germans helped by overestimating the strength of the Enigma and thus neglecting some measures that would have been in their interest.
The Venona project is also instructive.
It achieved a lot and yet decrypted a small part of all intercepted messages.
@benroyce @jwcph @erikcats @signalapp
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to Vassil Nikolov | Васил Николов • • •the great weakness of all fascists is their arrogance and hubris. when they surround themselves with yes men and push lies over truth, they fall for their own bullshit about "superiority"
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 reshared this.
Charo del Genio
in reply to JWcph, Radicalized By Decency • • •@jwcph @benroyce @erikcats I was about to post something exactly to this meaning!
Also, I would even avoid saying that, if actually made feasible, quantum computers will make hard mathematical problems "easy"; rather, I would say that they would solve them quickly, and much more so than currently imaginable with classic computer architecture. The difference in terminology has to do with how one actually counts the operations that need to be performed in order to solve the problem. Additionally, there is the problem of errors, but let's not get to technical (yet).
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to Charo del Genio • • •yeah i heard error correction is the big problem with quantum computing
Charo del Genio
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 reshared this.
Sean Fenian
in reply to Charo del Genio • • •There's also the fact that every time so far that some company has claimed "quantum supremacy" and boasted of having "solved" a certain precisely-chosen problem multiple orders of magnitude faster than possible with a classical computer, a different set of researchers have looked at that problem, reframed it, and come up with a way to solve it in comparable time using a classical computer.
The level of hype really is staggering.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to Sean Fenian • • •@zakalwe @paraw @jwcph @erikcats
there is no lock made by a human that another human cannot break
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 reshared this.
Sean Fenian
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to Sean Fenian • • •a locked door won't stop the police. but your casual handle jiggling thief knows that the noise involved in breaking in won't work out well for them
all security is about "good enough"
Sibrosan
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •@benroyce @zakalwe @paraw @jwcph @erikcats
What about the lock that I made and that I broke myself? Another human cannot break it, since it is already broken.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to Sibrosan • • •@sibrosan @zakalwe @paraw @jwcph @erikcats
ah, the philosophical supremacy of "you cannot hack me because i hacked myself"
mkj
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •@benroyce @erikcats *Some* really hard math problems.
If large-scale quantum computers turn out to be viable, certain classes of problems are going to be impacted more than others.
It is not true that "all" encryption will stop working, even for generous definitions of "all" and "stop working".
It's certainly bad enough, however. And we now have cryptographic algorithms which are believed to be resistant to *both* classical computer and quantum computer attacks. Which is good.
@signalapp
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to mkj • • •is it Winternitz One-Time Signatures/ Lamport signatures?
i'm not a cryptographer but this stuff fascinates me
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_…
Cryptographic signature scheme
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)mkj
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •@benroyce I'm not an expert either. My understanding is that for example modular multiplication math (which is used for almost all classical public key cryptographic algorithms, both encryption and signing) is potentially highly impacted by QC; but much math used for symmetric-key encryption and for hashing is significantly less affected. E.g., the effective security of AES-256 is reduced to ~ AES-128, BUT that also assumes QC operations are similar to classical operations.
@erikcats @signalapp
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to mkj • • •@mkj @erikcats
yeah that's my understanding as well
"you can break this but you need a bank of 1 billion computers operating for 1 billion years, so..."
{quantum computing enters the chat}
"oops"
so you just change the method to something that is not so vulnerable to quantum computing
rhempel
in reply to mkj • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to rhempel • • •@rhempel @mkj @erikcats
publicly reported, they are up to 6,000 physical qubits as of september, and ibm is aiming for 100,000 physical qubits by 2033
which allows for 100 logical qubits
don't ask me what any of that means
but i'm reminded of "this computer has 4K of memory? that's astonishing!" from the 1980s
and look at us now
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 reshared this.
fcalva
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •mkj
in reply to mkj • • •Bottom line, I guess, is that there are plenty of nuances here which I am happy to let people who know the stuff much better than I do handle; but it's not quite as clear-cut as "the whole world will break" as it is sometimes presented.
There's a number of detail assumptions which may or may not turn out to be true which impact the actual result. But taking a cautionary stance, we do know that the risk is non-trivial and thus taking mitigative steps is good.
@benroyce @erikcats @signalapp
Charo del Genio
in reply to mkj • • •@mkj @benroyce @erikcats well, one other problem is that of the immense number of continuous parameters needed to describe the state of an actual quantum computer. And then along come papers such as this one
journals.aps.org/prresearch/ab…
This is really cool! And the way I see it, it has the potential to address the problem above by providing a general way to discretize quantum systems. So I guess we'll have to wait and see how things work out.
Personally, I'm quite sceptical about the whole quantum hype, but I'm keeping an open mind.
mkj
in reply to Charo del Genio • • •@paraw Oh, there is a *LOT* to this which doesn't fit in 500 characters! And like I said, I'm not an expert. But we DO know that this stuff is possible in principle, even if not in practice currently; and we DO now have primitives which provide protection. Since it's hard to change the past, taking a cautionary stance would mean that we move toward a setup which provides protection while not stripping us of protection, while there's time to do it less stressfully.
@benroyce @erikcats @signalapp
mkj
in reply to mkj • • •To my mind, quantum computers these days are maybe perhaps at the level of EDSAC, ENIAC or their ilk in classical computer terms: just barely usable for more than proof of concept. No one familiar only with those would imagine them being developed into a smartwatch yet here we are. We can see that there are certain classes of problems, widely relied upon, where quantum computing significantly changes the rules of the game. Not a crisis, but worth attention.
@paraw @benroyce @erikcats @signalapp
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to mkj • • •well said
George B
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 reshared this.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to George B • • •@gbargoud @erikcats
OOOOH
all those trump land encrypted messages will be seen in the future
that's a great bit of news
George B
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •I really really do not want to see a picture of his dick. I'm certain that's in like half of them.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to George B • • •SteveJB
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •Joan of Snark
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •@benroyce
Thank you for this!
(I read the original post, and all I could think was: "I like cake.")
@erikcats @signalapp
Desert Camel
in reply to Signal • • •Charo del Genio
Unknown parent • • •@benroyce @zakalwe @hotelzululima @jwcph @erikcats true story: a while ago, I briefly worked on a tetrazole compound. The goal was to better understand a certain molecular mechanism in plants. The compound was synthesised by a student, who is one of the best chemists I've met (think Walter White sans drugs). He did it during a weekend because, in his own words, "if something messed up, it would have blown up the university, and at least it would have been empty."
We published our findings here
pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/a…
L29Ah
in reply to Signal • • •blog.cr.yp.to/20231125-kyber.h… this one, right?
cr.yp.to: 2023.11.25: Another way to botch the security analysis of Kyber-512
blog.cr.yp.toBen Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to Charo del Genio • • •@paraw @zakalwe @hotelzululima @jwcph @erikcats
😅 😅 😅
good chemists have better salaries
but good software engineers have more fingers
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 reshared this.
Charo del Genio
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 • • •Sean Fenian
in reply to Charo del Genio • • •My co-author on one of my books once attended a weekend party at which they were, among other things, using liquid nitrogen to make ice cream.
After a while, the liquid nitrogen ran out.
Sometime AFTER that point, one of the attendees showed up with a freshly-made batch of ice cream, inviting people to try it. Those who KNEW the nitrogen had run out immediately called a stop and said, "Wait, wait, what exactly did you use to make this?"
He had unknowingly used liquid oxygen.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
in reply to Sean Fenian • • •@zakalwe @hotelzululima @paraw @jwcph @erikcats
Holy shit 😱
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩
Unknown parent • • •stony kark
in reply to Signal • • •TagHunt
in reply to Signal • • •Amazing work you guys are doing!
Though I'd like to see some community oriented features like spaces and/or moderation tools
Still my most favorite messenger
Keep up the good work!
Yet another Josh
in reply to Signal • • •And you still require a fucking phone number to make an account.
"Whoop doop we're post quantum encryption but you still have your phone number and give away ALL your metadata and who you call!"
Weatherall
in reply to Signal • • •lol !
what is wrong with you mental mastubators?
is there a single day you dont waste in the toilet bowl delusions of man and his endless grifts?
YOU LIVE IN A FANTASY WORLD! WAKE UP!!!!
kenwheeler.substack.com/p/quan…
QUANTUM is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. No such BS exists in Nature, period
Ken wheeler (Ken Theoria Apophasis Substack)Jackkluz
in reply to Weatherall • • •Weatherall
in reply to Jackkluz • • •no not this.
read the article - Title is clear - no room for "quantum" anything in REALITY.
you missed the point bruh.
Jackkluz
in reply to Weatherall • • •Bitcoin takes a finite quantum of entropy defined by difficulty scaling the nonce space and through proof-of-work transforms it into conserved thermodynamic memory: satoshis, a quantum of structure and value. The result is a computed quantum of time: the block.
It is the most literal definition of “quantum” and of “computing.” Energy beneath the physical mirage reduces to discrete quanta at the scale of Planck time. Bitcoin instantiates that process at human scale.
A quantum without absolute scarcity is unintelligible. Physics drifts when it defines quanta without bounds. Measurement is not a convention, it must be tied to a scarce denominator. No such scarce denominator existed before Bitcoin, thus no true measurement existed before Bitcoin.
“A measure of any kind, of any thing, is not a thing at all, nor is a measure found in nature. A measure is an agreed-upon standard of measure.” Except Bitcoin’s measurement is not an agreement. It is a thing. It is conserved energy, crystallized into memory. It’s not just an
... show moreBitcoin takes a finite quantum of entropy defined by difficulty scaling the nonce space and through proof-of-work transforms it into conserved thermodynamic memory: satoshis, a quantum of structure and value. The result is a computed quantum of time: the block.
It is the most literal definition of “quantum” and of “computing.” Energy beneath the physical mirage reduces to discrete quanta at the scale of Planck time. Bitcoin instantiates that process at human scale.
A quantum without absolute scarcity is unintelligible. Physics drifts when it defines quanta without bounds. Measurement is not a convention, it must be tied to a scarce denominator. No such scarce denominator existed before Bitcoin, thus no true measurement existed before Bitcoin.
“A measure of any kind, of any thing, is not a thing at all, nor is a measure found in nature. A measure is an agreed-upon standard of measure.” Except Bitcoin’s measurement is not an agreement. It is a thing. It is conserved energy, crystallized into memory. It’s not just an “agreement”, because truth does not care about your opinion.
Bitcoin is the only system to prove that a quantum of entropy can resolve into a conserved quantum of structure: auditable, irreversible, and true.
Weatherall
in reply to Jackkluz • • •there is NO SUCH thing as a “quantum of entropy”. Not in bitcoin. Not in REALITY.
YOU. ARE. WRONG.
youtube.com/watch?v=faaMsuNitC…
🤔 FIELD Theory in Depth: Fake Particle-Fantasy pseudo-science of Quantum & Relativity
YouTubeTracking Token Disrespector
in reply to Weatherall • • •🤖 Tracking strings detected and removed!
🔗 Clean URL(s):
youtube.com/watch?v=faaMsuNitC…
❌ Removed parts:
&pp=ygUPdGhlb3JpYSBxdWFudHVt
🤔 FIELD Theory in Depth: Fake Particle-Fantasy pseudo-science of Quantum & Relativity
YouTubeMatthieu
in reply to Signal • • •OhMyGoodnas
in reply to Signal • • •