l33t233372

This is an awful lot of math. It’s funny juxtaposed to your other comment disregarding the need for mathematics background in encryption.

It seems like you have an issue with _how_ the math is explain, not _that_ the math is explained.

Can you explain why?

It’s my understanding that every cryptographic algorithm is based on math, much of it not so simple.

When everything is finite and memory is always limited, what are you meaningfully saying about the possible behaviors of software here?

The third bullet point explicitly mentions the device being compromised, so I think it’s unfair to paint that as unrelated to security or just a parental-control issue.

That’s not necessarily true. The government grants the right to a free public education, for example.

So-called positive rights are not something you’re born with, as opposed to negative rights, which are things you’re protected from the government taking away.

The US constitution only describes the powers the government has and some restrictions of those powers.

So why are you mentioning it like it’s a unique drawback? It’s inherent to the activity!

> voiding my warranty and risking bricking my phone using a jailbreak exploit

Messing around with the kernel generally does run the risk of voiding warranties and bricking devices.

> computers are naturally able to compute.

Computers aren’t naturally able to do anything.

This specific computer system was created as an iOS machine. That’s it’s “””natural””” purpose.

I think that’s an important part of it, yes.

Do you feel that if you bought an xbox that don’t own that?

Yes. It doesn’t provide any access to it at all.

> It's a perfectly fine computer, but Apple went and turned it into an iPhone App Executor.

I never argued that the hardware physically couldn’t execute instructions for other purposes

> Apple owns the machine, not you.

That’s not true. I can destroy it if I choose.

Of course there’s nothing inherent to it that makes it locked down. The microprocessor in my dishwasher could also run arbitrary code.

That doesn’t mean locking it down is bad or wrong.

Isn’t that how every locked down computer is created?

> It doesn't need to be "turned" into a general purpose device. It already is. That's its nature

I don’t understand what you’re saying. Apple didn’t find these devices in the wild and tame them. They created them.

Why? What makes phones general purpose that wouldn’t apply to an xbox?

I would argue that phones are not general purpose computing devices either.

That level of logic taught to every mathematics and computer science student, and it’s really not what I was thought others in this thread were talking about.

Homeless people also exist in non-capitalist economies so I’m not certain that is evidence of anything.

Scarcity is the problem, not capitalism.

> As part of the first semester you take linear algebra and analysis, starting out with the basics of formal logic

There is not enough time to learn the basics of formal logic and linear algebra and/or analysis in a single class, but I think what you’re referring to is an introduction to proof techniques like induction, modus tollens, quantifiers, etc.

Every math and computer science department in the US that I’ve ever heard of teaches these topics, but I wouldn’t call it a formal logic class.

> If the cost of losing data to hacks was, say three times higher than the cost estimated to secure it

I’d estimate that if this happened, the cost to secure data would grow by about a factor of 3.

iPad had lots of producer-esque features, so I’m not sure what you mean by that.

I’m sorry to be blunt, but what on earth are you talking about?

Could you please provide a heap of more context — this reads like conspiracy nonsense upon first glance.

I’m confused about what you’re saying here. GP doesn’t imply no one could possibly enjoy metaverse; when they are talking about “what people want,” I think this should be taken as “what [the vast majority of] people want.” This is in line with your .01% business.

You specifically said “one class at a time” what did you mean?

> trending towards aggressively simplistic labeling of complex social issues

I think that’s the opposite of true.

I’m not convinced FUD is a real thing.

FUD is an interesting term. Why do you use it here? Are you implying GP’s message is part of a broader campaign?

Why do you feel this is a language problem?

> Harvard. It's unfortunate in the present day that so many naive tech individuals don't understand that they've been deliberately recruited by the left in universities worldwide via indoctrination one class at a time

Can you elaborate what you mean by that? I find the notion ridiculous, but I’d like more detail before I write it off.