enord

Indeed, but the art component (as in: relevance within the zeitgeist, social commentary, emotional message etc.) of these movements, while subversive, didn't hinge on the express illigality of the act itself.

Grafitti is beautiful vandalism. Paradoxical, controversial, illigal yet defensible, vexing and captivating at the same time. Under the protection of the law, only half of these remain, leaving grafitti with the artistic content of the common tattoo. Illigal, controversial and vexing now replaced with vulgar, crass and stupefying.

(not to put down tattoos as an artistic medium, i'm just saying nobody's impressed with your sick sleeve, George)

Ah hah! Now _that's_ a conundrum... How can it be grafitti if it's not subversive? Grafitti as art would vanish in a puff of logic.

Maybe they did something silly that had no real consequences, but the browser should face consequences.

Simply put: It's when you extend the mathematical system by applying an operation to all eligible elements in the system (for example by redefining which elements are amendable to a given operation, like sqrt(-1))

Logic example (transitive closure): given "A->B", "B->C" in a sytem then your system can be extended to also contain "A->C" if you decide to interpret "->" as transitive.

If the validation process to obtain a certificate is rigorous then you have little deniability if and when you are held accountable for any shenanigans. Where I work, if the process to obtain a certificate is rigorous enough, certain entrusted CAs can issue certificates with legal non-repudiation (legal signature) and identifying power. This is written into law. You can bet your car this will create tons of case law when GDPR lands.

The EV-cert doesn't help twitter or facebook (other than making them seem more trustworthy), it doesn't provide any extra cryptographic or operational security, it helps the user better ascertain who is accountable and where when the shit inevitably hits the fan.

To adress your aside: If twitter uses EV somewhere end non-EV elsewhere (depending on geolocation) then I'd wager they do it to comply minimally to the juridistiction in which they serve requests, that is: minimise legal exposure by foregoing EV-certs where this is legally tenable.

ps: I'm getting some downvotes for my view on this, but little in the way of arguments. I'm happy to be corrected. Am I coming off as an asshat on this?

Probably yes. More probably if the interaction was validated with an EV-cert.

Obviously the law applies regardless of certificate type, but your ability to prove claims is affected.

Essentially yes, but that can be established through other channels in legal proceedings involving large, well established actors.

An ev-cert tells the user that the operator of a site has taken pains to make themselves legally accountable, and have confirmed details about juridistiction, legal entity, liason, etc. to the CA, which in turn connects cryptographic non-repudiation to legal non-repudiation (i.e. a signature).

All this is to state that with EV, every http response is basically signed and dated by the legal organisation that operates the site (grossly simplified, but sufficient for this argument). This signals where and how any dispute is to be arbitrated and settled (officially, and possibly legally), and conversely how seriously the security and integrity of the interaction is considered.

The ev-cert acknowledges legal exposure, and therefore it also informs users of legal exposure.

Well it's expected in contexts where legal responsibilities are defined and widely understood (or misunderstood, depending) and also because it's literally the reason they exist.

To quote wikipedia: >An Extended Validation Certificate (EV) is a certificate used for HTTPS websites and software that proves the legal entity controlling the website or software package.

Top 10 sites are not using EV because they don't wan't to meet the expectations of EV-level trust.

If twitter compromises your account details, you can change your passwords. If your (E-validated) electronic banking service compromises your account details, you can sue.

EV is laborious for social reasons (and some technical reasons ofcourse, nobody likes ASN1 extensions etc.), your effort to secure and validate a service is proportional to your stake in the transaction.

More trade work, war, education crash, hiring reform... All good means, but what is the end? Lower unemployment? I'll take it, but I'm talking about something slightly different: Happy children (and people in general).

If people are thriving they will be more productive, more receptive and more motivated. This is not controversial and by now well established in business practice, but it's pretty far down the list of what we endow our children and students. Of course the dean will say all these things, but they're platitudes and the money says otherwise. It's just not a priority.

Did this trend start with social media? We are doing lots of stuff to teenagers these days that we didnt do before. They are beholden to expectations far narrower than we were.

We treat them as adults in school (by making them responsible for their own performance through grading and measuring) from a very young age, yet we don't really cut the umbelical cord (grant them autonomy) until they're in their twenties.

Socially they're expected to act in their long term interest, at the expense of social and emotional self-realization (i.e. "maturing") for a long time, and the only alternative is failure (now on prominent display on social media heh...)

I don't have time to socratically convince you of it, so i'll just spell it out: you can't tolerate intolerance of groups, persons or behaviors (that don't infringe on other people's liberty) in a _democracy_ because it will undermine the legitimacy and thus participation of said group or person within the democracy itself.

I realize that "intolerance of intolerance" is paradoxical in nature, but common sense and a little charity in interpretation goes a long way.

>Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct.

As is required to maintain what I would call a "democracy" with "individual rights". We have to be vehemently intolerant of intolerance and marginalization (in general), and this is more important than free speech. Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. Some people get this backwards, usually the kind of people who can't keep their foot out of their mouth.

Inscrutable models? Check. "I know it when i see it" success criteria? Check. Unjustified optimism? Check.

Sounds more like alchemy than experimental physics to me.

Of course, in hindsight you "only" have to calculate the Levehnstein distance between any product name and _all other_ product names on the store. That scales well. In order to close one single avenue for fraudulent advertisement. Maybe it's a big one, and maybe the cost is recouped through improved customer relations. Maybe.

And maybe they implement this, and calculate hundreds of millions (billions?) of Levehnstein distances every day, but the next day someone publishes the same app but with a germanized name ("Was ist App Update") and fools a couple'o hundred thousand germans. Now the solution is obvious, run the names through Google Translate for ALL languages and calculate the respective levehnstein distances! I'ts foolproof! Shame on you google for not doing it already! Simply irresponsible.

Trust is hard. It cannot be automated, it's inherently social and demands vigilance. This is as true IRL as it is online and on "curated" federations (of software, news, contacts etc). The "killer app" for trust is one that extends our natural skepticism and social awareness, and this will _never_ be easier online than in meatspace. This is obvious when we raise our perspective from the purely technological (the "means") to the fundamentally social (the "ends").

All the automated or manual safeguards that Google could enact would never prevent people from pulling a fast one, the old switcheroo, a kansas shuffle on each other because it's just something that we do. And we will use whichever means (technology) available, in whatever way feasible. This particular example looks egregious (or ingenious, depending) for cosmetic reasons, but it's fundamentally an interaction between people however fraudulent. Google is in the business of interactions between people.

Yes, but that comes with the operating system that comes with the computer i bought and use in the house which comes with electricity from the electrical grid in the city that lies in an aerated valley (luckily!) on the third planet from the sun. I should have added a disclaimer i guess.

It's not about human readability, it's about separating implementation from representation, so "readable without any software" is a good test for wether it's "readable with any sfotware".

If your document editor represents documents as a stack of edit-events (for undo/redo or whatever) and you document every nook and cranny of this "document format", standardize it as "binary event-sourced document format, .esd" then your binary spec will be very close to a full description of your document editor. Everyone who wants to use your format now has to reimplement your editor.

Anyone can leak implementation details into any format, and it is to some extent unavoidable, but if you can make it readable (or semi-readable), some thought has at least been put into the representation.

Oh, well then could you point me to a formal definition of the syntax and semantics for the unary "..." operator then? What is then domain and codomain, for example?

Much obliged.

I believe the confusion is spread across several layers. For those in the know, infinite decimal expansion is syntactic sugar for a limit over a particular infinite series of sums, but this convention sidesteps how people are taught syntactic manipulation and how it's intetpteted in a particular algebra.

0.999... is presented as a term, that can be syntactically replaced with an actual infinite decimal expansion, upon which the normal syntactic opetations can be applied, specifically "=" as in "0.999...=1".

This is ofcourse impossible, because even if the rules are valid you would be applying them forever. This is the apparent absudity of the equation. In defence of people who hold this intuition: it's a valid concern in many branches of math(discrete, constructive, infinitesimal etc.), just not in informal expositions of the properties of real numbers.

I disagree, I think we've had nothing but. In the developed world, we can't see the forest for the trees. Our gauges are centered elsewhere, and we can't even imagine ever running out.

But we do see what people are saying, and communicating and in general being unapologetic about. In fact it's all we ever see, is people lying through their teeth, pandering, proselytizing. Denying climate change, dog-whistling, cancelling firefly. We see it and hear it all day, year round. There's free and protected expression flying over our heads from every direction constantly, more than ever, and causing grief and harm that we see (well... perceive) and feel (or indulge). Still there is a perceived democratic deficit. It's a paradox, but we don't think of it as one, it's more like dissonance. Freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular is just not what it's trumped up to be.

This is only suprising (or outrageous) under the assumption that we live in a global civil rights society. Only commerce is more or less global because it directly serves the interests of states around the world.

Is normal.

Some of it are my own frustrations from first or second hand experience. I'm just young enough that I was a teenager during the later years of the statistic (allthough I probably weighed against the trend except for the driving part). Yet I've had time to teach since I came of age, and talk to people.

Most of it though is just empathic (pathetic maybe?) outrage towards what I perceive-- no, feel is a steady devaluation of diversity in people, children in particular. Diversity of experience, of interest, of priorities and values. Diversity of stories.

The collective narrative we impose on children is that we're going to give them this great education, they're gonna have such great opportunities ('yuuge opportunities), and we're gonna make extra double sure that that it's the greatest education bestowed on any generation. We'll know it's the greatest education because we're going to test them relentlessly. And they will be grateful. They had better be grateful, and make something from this invaluable opportunity.

I'm exaggerating (and sprinkled a little Trump in there) to make it more obviously self-serving, because we are not helping them grow, were growing them. And we're weeding the meadow of anyone and anything that doesn't fit the mold. And I need to get off my soapbox, because I'm rambling.

Teens are living in an isolated socitety from us that can seem like a strange stasi-germany enforced through guilt. Expectations are set for them to perform in measures that are unrelated to personal growth and developement, and from a young age. Different parties observe them and intervene on almost any deviation from expectation. The path is narrowing.

Underperform on a standardized school test, intervention. Spend too much time alone, intervention. Spend too much time online, intervention, admonishment. Test social boundaries and get in a fight, intervention, involve police. Can't spend all day in a poorly ventilated room, learning topics you never chose at a pace you can't control, without acting out; now you have to take pills. Skip class to try cigarettes, intervention and maybe CPS. Have you applied for college yet? You know you can't get a job without a degree. Apply yourself. Why are you falling behind? Apply yourself harder. Feel bad. You don't want to be flipping burgers do you? 4 more years without responsibilities, you'll remember them fondly.

Unless you excel academically or possibly athletically you are given nothing to be proud of. Anything else is a concession given in pity and children are made to know it. We make them feel bad for everything they don't master, but we make them keep doing it and we push them along so they're always behind. The only way to get off the merry-go-round is to drop out and flip burgers, but lately that has become a failure. A failure of talent, ambition, skill and - worst of all - character. It's no wonder that tey are risk-averse.

Maybe if that someone was just smoking pot and otherwise paid taxes. This particular group of drug users are not the central point of concern of the UN Special Assembly, even though its part of the wider problem. They are not dying in the streets and they are not socially marginalized. Allthough (anecdotally) i've known several fumb pot-smoking ducks who thought they could finance their proclivity through distribution and wound up several thousand dollars in debt to people who take names and chew bubble-gum.

Well exuse me, I didn't know i was talking to a renneissance man. Addicts wheel and deal with each other, rack up debts to eachother, steal from one another. Some of them buy wholesale from larger distributors, usually with credit, to be repaid with interest or else. They rob, assault, rape and kill eachother over this stuff. I wish i was making this up.

Doctors in emergency rooms usually have instructions to confiscate any illegal drugs they discover on OD-patients, but are faced with the very real dilemma of leaving the patient at their creditors mercy. This can cause real harm (as in "First do no harm") to the patient and their prospects of recovery or harm reduction.

I think we passed the turning point some years ago when the medical community decided that harm reduction is more important than patient compliance. As long as doctors insist, the rest of society will come around eventually.

Of course, it took 40+ years of people literally dying in the streets before doctors began "washing their hands" (i.e. prescribing opiates to addicts, particularily non-compliant addicts who take additional drugs).

I see you've never dealt with a dealer before.