So you sound a little depressed. Not dating may be a mistake. It may be that your unconscious mind is suggesting you start a family and plays down other activities.
To your last point; You don’t’feel’ that time is running out. Time is running out and you need to be highly aware of that fact.
Wishing you could go back in time and do things differently is everyone’s story
Disgusting. What you should do is call your bank and reverse the charges for fraud. Unless you bank at Mercury in which case customer service will just laugh at you because they’re a shit bank (that I’m ditching today)
This idiot. Took down a countries internet and bragged to the press. I wonder how many doctors in NK couldn't serve their patients without network access?
But why stop there? Take out the power as well. Contaminate the water. We'll all have a good laugh. No wonder they're building missiles to shoot at us.
This hacker franchise has run its course. Ok it was a fun movie in 1995. But in our modern world what this guy has done is plainly terrorism, probably with a real body count. Not a prank, not hip and not cool. And if it was done to us it would be a clear act of war.
Calm down, he took down a few websites. He didn't take down their entire internet, as the article notes a few times:
> As rare as it may be for a single pseudonymous hacker to cause an internet blackout on that scale, it's far from clear what real effects the attacks have had on the North Korean government. Only a tiny fraction of North Koreans have access to internet-connected systems to begin with, says Martyn Williams, a researcher for the Stimson Center think tank's North Korea-focused 38 North Project. The vast majority of residents are confined to the country's disconnected intranet. Williams says the dozens of sites P4x has repeatedly taken down are largely used for propaganda and other functions aimed at an international audience.
> While knocking out those sites no doubt presents a nuisance to some regime officials, Williams points out that the hackers who targeted P4x last year—like almost all the country's hackers—are almost certainly based in other countries, such as China. “I would say, if he's going after those people, he's probably directing his attentions to the wrong place,” says Williams. “But if he just wants to annoy North Korea, then he is probably being annoying.”
> For his part, P4x says he would count annoying the regime as a success, and that the vast majority of the country's population that lacks internet access was never his target. “I definitely wanted to affect the people as little as possible and the government as much as possible,” P4x says.
I have had nothing but abysmal experiences with ubuntu on desktops and laptops over the years. It's a combination of the general jankiness of desktop linux and their poor design choices. If Windows is lipstick on a pig, Ubuntu is a dress and a leopard skin print handbag... on the pig. The pig doesn't understand what's happening and it's even more annoyed.
There are many material reasons as to why (conventional) desktop linux has never managed to make even the smallest dent in market share. IMO and IME, failing to get above 5% of desktop users has nothing to do with the Windows licensing monopoly.
That said, I do think they should offer a license-less version of the laptop - allowing people to maintain a free and libre stack is incredibly important and an effort that I support.
e: i have expressed my issues with desktop linux before and people always ask for examples, as if i was doing something wrong or incompetently setting up my machine. My go to example is this: I installed 20.04 towards the end of 2020. I installed the nvidia graphics driver using ubuntu's built in driver manager. Rebooted. Installed all updates. Rebooted. The machine immediately locked up after starting the kernel, and was wedged so severely that I couldn't even get recovery mode to start (immediate crash). I actually contain the basic skillset to get a boot console out on serial but... why put the effort in?
Whose fault was it? I don't know, but I expect the basic QA such that when I use the built in tools to do minimal and routine configuration to my computer, it doesn't destroy my installation. This is probably the funniest example of my desktop linux woes, but it is a long list and the majority of examples are, in my opinion, extremely unreasonable for even technical users to deal with.
Well I ditched windows in '01 having used it since the 3.11 days, and have never looked back. Even when I had to compile Slackware from scratch. I guess like any OS you need to stick with it. If the graphics card isn't compatible change it out.
I resent Microsoft for releasing that software when I was in college because it was adopted so quickly I was forced to use it rather than a unix based system, and that did real damage to by professional development. As an OS, Windows 98 was incredibly bad software, crashing constantly with technicians reduced to what can only be termed 'strategies of superstition' to repair the never ending stream of downed machines. It was a total nightmare for everyone involved and Microsoft proved why to never, never, never, never use their product again.
I won’t touch GCP, even after they gave us 2k credits. Their customer service reps have “well that’s just too bad” on the tip of their tongue. AWS is #1 for good reason
This is why I could never live or do business in the UK. The people and their government are primitive and don’t understand what freedom means.
If you study parliament it quickly becomes clear that the UK operates under a dictatorship and the license of democracy it claims for it’s citizens is fraudulent. Witch hunts over tweets and attacks on common cryptography only prove that further. We need to start correcting UK citizens when they claim to be free and remind them the ‘special exceptions’ they allowed their government to include totally and obviously undermine and break their freedom.
And this man. Like the rest of his generation he was out with a machine gun in the fields. He’s beyond criticism? Because he’s old? Because he walked in his garden for charity? Because he was on the English side and all English soldiers get a pass, wink wink? He probably blew 30 young soldiers brains out on tour.
For a hash function to be mathematically secure, it needs to have a formal proof that the computational complexity of a preimage or collision attack (depending on the threat) meets some criteria. For example, [1]. As far as I'm aware, no such formalism exists for anything in the SHA family. This means in theory someday someone could discover a way to short circuit the desired complexity by taking advantage of some weakness in the algorithm, as they did to MD5 and SHA1 already.
In principal, these attacks are getting to the complexity where any new discovery will probably be aided by some form of AI (using a pretty loose definition of AI, computer aided search through an attack space). I only comment because the OP seemed rather flippant about 'math' protecting SHA256 where unless I'm mistaken there is no such protection.
You’re correct that there is no proof of the security of SHA1. The existence of any one-way function would imply that P != NP.
And if it turns out that P = NP then it will turn out that most of the cryptographic guarantees we rely on today will be unrealizable on classical computers.
Quantum computers may not help us as it is currently unknown if quantum computers are more powerful than classical computers in terms of time complexity (it’s strongly suspected that this is the case though).
What relationship do any SHA family hashes have to do with P vs NP? I'm not aware of any. If there is some proof that subset sum reduces to constructing a preimage of anything in the SHA family then I would count that 'mathematically' secure but I don't think any such reduction exists.
The relationship is that computing the SHA hashes takes polynomial time. One way you can think of NP is that it is the set of problems whose solutions that can be deterministically verified in polynomial time. So for any hash computable in polynomial time, the pre-image problem is in NP.
Note that this doesn’t prove the security of SHA256, it just says that to prove it secure would be to prove P != NP. You could still prove SHA256 insecure and that proof could be totally separate from P =? NP.
FWIW I'm not trying to say that SHA256 is broken by anyone. I personally believe it may never be broken. I'm merely saying it's not mathematically proven to be as robust as we assume it is, but our assumption is fine for now for all practical purposes.
Yes, but the problem becomes who can evaluate it? Inevitably another AI system because of the complexity. And who has the most powerful AI? And what is their agenda? Ah! another backdoored algorithm.
But the real issue is the loss of confidence in the “blockchain technology”. If bitcoin is cracked the cryptomania scam will be done for a generation.
Is this compassionate use or experimentation on a dying patient for the future benefit of the rest of us? I’m fine with the latter, if consensual. But only if we call it what it is.
First generation transplants are always both. David would have died soon without this (he's quite likely to die soon with it too, unfortunately, if this goes anything like other first of a kind transplant receivers). Desperate people accept desperate measures, and the hope that it may teach us how to save others helps too.
It's a way to potentially prolong a terminally ill patients life with an experimental technique, potentially advancing medical science in doing so. I fail to see why this should be cast in a negative light.
That is what a clinical trial is. There is now other way. Although with organs-on-a-chip we are working on at least getting the animal testing stages confined to a minimum. Over time we may reduce the risk to first recipients of new tech using these new technologies. Perhaps even digital models may at somepoint start playing a role. But until we have digital models, this is what we have. And it does seem to work well in this case.
Yes. No matter what the treatment might be, someone always has to be the first human it's tried on.
Even if we did have good digital simulations, someone would still have to be the first human to get it "for real". That's just the nature of things. Someone has to be the first patient of a new heart surgeon. Someone has to be the first person to hire a newly-minted PE to design a bridge that might fail and kill thousands. And so on.
We mitigate these risks to the best of our ability by ensuring rigorous training of doctors and PEs, and stuff like animal testing and computer simulations, but someone still has to be first.
It sounds like this patient was well aware of the risks, and opted to get the procedure since otherwise his death would be a certainty.
It is quite clear since the first article on this topic that the recipient is very aware of the potential and risks. If I may say, he sounds like he geeks out about it. He had previously received a pig heart valve which kept him alive a long time. This probably affects his perceptions positively too.
From everything I read it was consensual. But that raises a larger moral question. Is it really consent if you're about to die? I think that almost anyone given the choice to either die or get a pig heart will choose the latter, there's a good chance you will die if you get the transplant but there is a 100% chance that you will die if you don't.
I don't think that is necessarily true - people reject potentially lifesaving treatments all the time for many different reasons. Yes, the desire to live is very strong in us, but it's not infinite.
Since it's consent to do the best option available and he wasn't put into the position of needing the help by the ones offering it I don't think it's much of a moral issue. Usually the moral problems come when less than ideal alternatives are proposed or people are forced into a situation where they otherwise wouldn't have had to choose. I.e. conflict of interest stuff from the ones proposing to get consent to try to help.
The guy would have died pretty soon without the procedure. If the choice is between dying for sure in a few weeks, or maybe dying in a few weeks but maybe not dying for another few years.... I'll take the 2nd option.
So you sound a little depressed. Not dating may be a mistake. It may be that your unconscious mind is suggesting you start a family and plays down other activities.
To your last point; You don’t’feel’ that time is running out. Time is running out and you need to be highly aware of that fact.
Wishing you could go back in time and do things differently is everyone’s story