Another interesting scenario is that Satoshi is working directly with Craig in order to lend his authority on the little/big-blockian debate to Craig. This would explain the mountain of evidence as well as Craig's apparent incompetence.
Of course this conspiracy has a low prior probability due to it's complexity, but it does explain why the inventor of bitcoin would be 1) taking of screenshots of buggy code in notepad, 2) using factorial notation to enumerate combinatorics of bitstrings, and 3) being so generally dislikable.
But for the non-hash-aware among us, it would take on average 2,147,483,647 as long to brute force the last 8 with the same computing power and 4,294,967,295 as long to hash every combination of the last 8. This all assumes no vulnerabilities in the algorithm, of course.
I think this really hits the nail on the head. "The later investors" here really include everyone except for YC, insofar as investors have heretofor been able to take the YC stamp on a company as certification that these sort of issues have been worked out. I think the end result of this is that you'll see a market correction against YC companies as VC's find they have to put in extra due diligence they didn't have to before. Altman raising attention to this issue may act as a catalyst.
OP here. I made this because I love mosh [1], but was simply unable to convince IT to let me use it on the network. Using mosh sometimes and ssh other times was a real pain for muscle memory, so I figured there must be some way of getting those mosh features without going through UDP port 60000. I was recommended to try autossh, but discovered that was lacking in polish, and wrote this instead. Hope you guys enjoy it too!
I propose center padding. Why does the padding need to be at the end of the word? That's just an artificial limitation imposed by the rent-seeking incumbents in the padding industry.
The hypocrisy is only superficial. It seems at first thought that the government (being owned by the people) would be more trustworthy. But...
Based on incentives, the government is incentivized to put as many people in jail as possible. Apple is incentivized to make people's phone/laptop experience as good as possible.
Based on worst-case actions, Apple can use your data to 1) sell you more devices, 2) generally reduce your consumer purchasing power, or unlikely 3) sell/share your data and seriously compromise your privacy. The government, on the other hand, can throw you in jail, for life.
Based on history (Germany, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, ...), governments have demonstrated real threats with user data in hand that corporations have never really come close to competing with.
Your idea that Apple are incentivized to make people's phone experience as good as possible sounds like a wishful proposition. There's plenty of examples of Apple features and restriction designed as eco-system lock-in, behavior manipulation, or control limiting for commercial reasons. "What's good for Apple is good for our customers" is what they want you to believe, but as a long time iOS device owner, I reject that on numerous grounds.
There's also an equivalence flaw in your argument that sounds like it's coming straight from infowars.com: "the government is incentivized to put as many people in jail as possible".
I'm with your on incentives though. And one thing Apple have no commercial interest or incentive for, is fighting crime.
We don't live in Star Wars. There's more than dark vs light. My position doesn't mean I am not aware of western government corruption, bungling, even war crimes. But I am not permanently polarized, forever holding "the government" in contempt for misguided actions and evil intentions.
On history... if we're talking tyrannical governments, then "protection of user data" I suggest would not have stopped any given government in your examples from unleashing hell on its people one way or another.
Well I think my main point was just to say that the "hypocrisy" you mention actually has a rational backing. Not that the backing is bulletproof, but it's certainly more than a hypocrisy.
You seem to most strongly disagree with the assertion that "the government is incentivized to put as many people in jail as possible". It's pretty clear from my original comment that "the government" is referring to law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI. Note that the FBI has thousands of agents whose performance is measured ultimately by the percent of cases they close. Thus, the claim that FBI agents "are incentivized to put as many people in jail as possible" is more an observation than some crackpot theory. It doesn't mean that we should change that - running a law enforcement agency any other way wouldn't make much sense. But it does provide the rational backing for someone to be more concerned about worst-case government abuse of data than worst-case corporate abuse.
Wow. The difference in quality between the NYT 20 years ago and today is simply astonishing. It seems that this prescient article ironically also marked the beginning of the end for the New York Times.
This comment is the exact perception about HTTPS that we need to change. It's not the job of HTTPS to say whether a website is safe or unsafe, good or bad. HTTPS should be the default communication protocol for every website, and lets encrypt move us a major step towards that by making SSL certificates free and trivial to set up.
"This comment is the exact perception about HTTPS that we need to change. It's not the job of HTTPS to say whether a website is safe or unsafe."
Too late. The web industry has spent about 20 years training regular people to look for that green lock sign in the address bar and feel all warm and fuzzy about how safe the site is. You can post on hacker news all you want about what perceptions need to be changed. It's not going to change the ground reality. SSL, as practiced in the industry today with all it's historical baggage is fundamentally broken. There's no fixing it.
Actually what's really broken is the way we've approached implementations. Recently I was trying to get a self-signed certificate for myself trusted by Python urllib3...I still don't know how to do it. It uses a completely separate trust-store. As does half a dozen other things on my system.
Java is literally the worst as well. The Java truststore doesn't even have all the certs that every major browser supports. I'm looking at you StartSSL.
Green lock = EV cert. People are trained to look for the green, not for the lock - few people other than techies even look for a grey lock. EV certs generally have much more stringent requirements than "hey, give me a cert!".
I'm pretty sure "People are trained to look for the green, not for the lock" is newer and not nearly as widely known advice as "look for the lock". And it's pretty obvious just looking around non-tech-related sites that even the "look for the lock" advice isn't all that well received - so many sites use images of padlocks on the page to imply "banking grade security!!!", surely not _all_ of them are incompetent - I have a strong suspicion that at least some of those people are doing it as part of high statistical significance validated A?B tested funnel optimisations...
Of course this conspiracy has a low prior probability due to it's complexity, but it does explain why the inventor of bitcoin would be 1) taking of screenshots of buggy code in notepad, 2) using factorial notation to enumerate combinatorics of bitstrings, and 3) being so generally dislikable.