alecmuffett.bsky.social
everybody deserves good security.
https://alecmuffett.com/about
1,987 posts
4,417 followers
908 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
ps: agree fully with you, but OMG the nerds I have had to argue with over the decades
comment in response to
post
<cough/>
<remembers>
www.gnu.org/philosophy/w...
</remembers>
comment in response to
post
We have had our fair share of that, too, but for instance the light touch regulation & fostering of environments like "silicon roundabout" in London last only so long, until the next financial crisis and opportunity to castigate & blame nerds for the very disruption and innovation previously sought
comment in response to
post
To achieve that in the United Kingdom you would have had to start work in the early 1800s, where it would be necessary to re-train the upper classes to say "innovation" rather than "novelty"
comment in response to
post
We practically killed Turing.
That should be enough evidence.
comment in response to
post
You can see it in the likes of the Victorian attitudes towards Babbage and Brunel, where any degree of effort being expended is considered uncouth and possibly pointless, until such time as it props up empire
comment in response to
post
Having been through the British educational system myself, I must disagree. This is not an environmental effect, it is a consequence of more than a century of class warfare directed against "trade", Viz: People who got their hands dirty in pursuit of innovation.
comment in response to
post
The mindset sits somewhere between "managers and leaders* are the true visionaries who should be properly compensated" and "sporting victory is only honourable if you're an amateur**"
[*] Viz: those who read PPE at Balliol
[**] See: rugby, cricket, athletics
comment in response to
post
AND YET Mindgeek are all over the UK encouraging and helping out with Age Verification.
It's almost as if they oppose it wherever a state, rather than private-sector, "solution" is being proposed / clearly in the pipeline.
comment in response to
post
AND YET Mindgeek are all over the UK encouraging and helping out with Age Verification.
It's almost as if they oppose it wherever a state, rather than private-sector, "solution" is being proposed / clearly in the pipeline.
comment in response to
post
Oh gosh, if you want to know where they are, see where they came from in 2016: medium.com/@alecmuffett...
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
The bubbles probably are not, though.
comment in response to
post
More like a massacre.
comment in response to
post
Exactly the point: if your device gets compromised with on-device classifiers then all bets are off because your "trusted compute base" is not fit for purpose.
This is why civil society needs to support #WhatsApp to reject scanning in the app, let alone on device.
alecmuffett.com/alecm/e2e-pr...
comment in response to
post
I'm just thinking about all of those people who were gainfully employed waving red flags in front of dangerous automobiles.
Maybe the problem was the regulation?
comment in response to
post
He blocked me, so I'm not expecting much.
comment in response to
post
Lol, dear heart, I *am* an optimist.
But I also live in the real world.
Compare: civil society calls for large platforms to adjudicate content and user take downs within (say) 24 hours, whilst libel proceedings in court frequently run for months.
comment in response to
post
*expectation* is wonderful - its like democracy or fairness or an informed political constituency.
Not necessarily realistic though.
comment in response to
post
"fair and quick" - pick either.
comment in response to
post
The Laws:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fla...
comment in response to
post
Aside: you have an impressively scientific name and an impressive set of citations.
Is the discussion of whether the peer review constitutes censorship one that would be falsifiable?
journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/...
comment in response to
post
Here you go:
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifi...
comment in response to
post
The point of falsifiability is that statements which cannot be falsified have no means to be measured and rejected. The canonical example is Russell's Teapot, but we are surrounded by others. It defines the realm of faith.
It is one metric - just one - for admission into scientific theory.
comment in response to
post
For instance: Newtonian mechanics - which is cited as having problems under falsifiability because people clung to it in the face of contrary results.
What should they have done?
Thrown the baby out with the bathwater and invoked some kind of God, or waited for refinements which eventually came?
comment in response to
post
Yeees, and atheism is also "scientific" because all one simply needs to do is demonstrate the existence of a god to falsify it.
You do seem awfully hung up about this concept of "scientific" as if it was the be-all and end-all of demonstrable development of scientific models.
comment in response to
post
That's not a very good article; the "cannot run the tape again" critique misrepresents prediction in (say) evolutionary theory; and that falsification "supports flat earthers" ignores that they live in a world that falsifies their theses, daily.
comment in response to
post
Have you considered installing @securedrop.org as a solution?
comment in response to
post
Could you help me understand this perspective better? e.g. The K/Pg boundary, in my lifetime we've gone from "crazy idea about meteors" to "tiny glass shock quartz baubles ingested by creatures after the impact" - falsifiability depends on context, evidence & evolution of frameworks of understanding
comment in response to
post
"gray goo", indeed.
comment in response to
post
Whenever anybody says "there is a balance to be struck" my most fundamental question is "why can't we have both?"