413 karma · joined July 18, 2021
Your choice of P (whether the continuum hypothesis holds) is still ill-defined! This is because the answer depends on the system of axioms one subscribes to. Or, if you feel like playing God, you may pick an answer (CH holds / does not hold) and find axioms that support it. (Which can be as simple as ZF + CH holds/does not hold.)
The Turing machine writes and reads from an infinite tape, and as such, the number of configurations (the machine's state + tape) is countably infinite.
I don't see how the second part of the sentence implies the first. The primary role of academics is generating new knowledge. Educating the ignorant is a public service that few are willing or able to do. Scott Aaronson deserves a lot of credit for dedicating so much energy to his blog, it does not mean that 99.99% of his peers are wrong in focusing on advancing the frontier of knowledge.
In my book, negative externalities are worse than taxes. If we agree that a car driving in Lower Manhattan inflicts a non-trivial cost on everyone else, then not taxing it leads to socially inefficient outcomes.
Effectively, locals are paying a price either way - either by having their bus moving slower, inhaling fumes, etc, or by buying goods and services that reflect congestion pricing. The difference is that congestion pricing aligns incentives - for instance, delivery drivers may choose to travel to Manhattan during the off-peak hours whereas in the status quo they do not care at all about inconveniencing others.
These statements presuppose an overly expansive definition of PKI, i.e., distribution of keys for public-key encryption. A more conservative definition is PKI = availability of trustworthy publicly verifiable signatures (i.e., public-key certificates). Post-quantum signatures can be based on target collision-resistant hash functions, like XMSS.
The paper assumes pairwise private and authenticated channels. While in practice this is not necessarily a good substitute for PKI, in theory it is a strictly weaker setting.
It isn't. Please don't do that! Mersenne Twister is fully reversible given its 624 consecutive outputs (see, for instance, this pretty good write-up: https://blog.ollien.com/posts/reverse-mersenne-twister). In other words, someone who can observe 624 outputs can reconstruct its entire output sequence forward and backward.
> things go badly pretty quick.
Dealing 2^200 hands, assuming that one hand takes 1ns, is more than ... pretty much any conceivable physical quantity one can think of. (Technically, the heat death of the universe takes longer than that but all card decks will be long gone, having been consumed by black holes.)
This is a long-winded way of saying that cryptography with 2^256 security margin ought to be sufficient for all human-scale applications.
Not exactly. FDA granted it an orphan drug designation in 2014, and then full approval for second- or third-line therapies in 2018 (on the basis of a Phase I/II study). The Phase III study (NCT03052608) is the gift that keeps on giving - it ran 2017-2020, and the progression-free survival in the lorlatinib arm is 60% vs 8% for the control.
> This sounds awful? Or contradictory at best?
No, quite amazing. At 5 years more than 50% of participants are progression-free. That's indeed off the charts for a metastatic lung cancer.
> In the phase 3 trial, 296 patients with advanced forms of non-small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to receive either lorlatinib (149 patients) or crizotinib (147 patients, of whom 142 ultimately received treatment).
SNAP also require asset limits, which is $2,750 per _household_. Given that rent for a large family may easily be in the ~$1,500-2,500 range, it leaves pretty much no money in the bank for any other expenses.
This is not informative. The correct comparison would be of the marginal cost of eligibility testing (both in terms of false positives and false negatives) vs the marginal cost of fraud. In other words, whether the current cost of means/asset testing is more than the current total fraud is irrelevant to the economic case for reducing or increasing funding for eligibility screening.
Second, 5-6% of the typical sale go toward the agents and closing costs. Again, this is money that leave the system.
Third, if some of the sale proceeds are applied to repaying an existing mortgage or to finance a home purchase, this is neutral as far as the "investor-backed mortgages create money" argument goes.
Is it? Since the house seller wants to have cold, hard cash (or, these days, an incoming wire transfer, which still counts as M1), the large investors need to cough up that much money to make the transaction happen.
I stand by my comment, however harsh it may seem. Some of the disdain held by cryptographers, especially of a certain generation, is in no doubt a reaction to Schneier's prominence in the public eye as Mr. Crypto. The fact that he is highly quotable and media-savvy makes him a go-to person whenever a comment is needed on something (anything!) happening in security.
Mention Schneier at a gathering of cryptographers, and you'll elicit groans and eye-rolls. The main reason for that is that his book creates an illusion of understanding without instilling tthat it covers literally 1% of what one needs to seriously work in the field. It is also ~30 years old, and was dated even when it appeared.
This is not to diminish the fact that Schneier is an excellent communicator and has done a great service to the security field by being a consistent and effective critic of the domestic security apparatus.
This is an active research topic of trying to characterize worst-case assumptions (i.e., the traditional kind) that imply average-case hardness for some problems, with several recent exciting results. See, for instance, an excellent talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQZEsmpbWE0&t=578s
This is a feature, not a bug. This is how a system of checks and balances works in authoritarian countries - the entire security apparatus is duplicated several times over lest one agency becomes too powerful or indispensable. KGB/Ministry of the Interior/Military kept each other in check for much of the later part of the Soviet Union's existence.
Unfortunately, no. First, the result applies to decision, not search problems. Second, the resulting deterministic algorithm is much less efficient than the randomized algorithm, albeit it still belongs to the same complexity class (under some mild assumptions).