cassonmars

I suspect this is going to be more a point about the fact that most PHP server configurations do not have the ability to be exploited by the recent vulnerability that made people think the AI vulnpocalypse was here

> We are looking for investors who:

> - want a privacy-preserving, free-software payment system to become legally available in Germany and the Euro area;

> - understand that this is a regulated infrastructure business with a licensing phase before revenue; and

> - are able to invest at least €50,000.

It's a shame that people can't say things like this for their own startups in the U.S. without violating securities laws. It would be so much easier.

that can sometimes be a plus considering how dependencies used by a lot of projects are themselves targets

> Once the open weight models are banned in the US

Bold assumption. Cryptography as a field had similar attempts at squashing access. Didn't end well for the censors.

> It really depends on your perspective of what the point of the hobby is. Were decomps/recomps a hobby because people wanted to make sure their old games could run on modern hardware and be extended with mods etc., or were they a hobby because people enjoyed the actual process of using Ghidra and reverse engineering by hand, and the decompiled game was just a side effect?

I think your question would make sense if these were the only two reasons. Someone who just wants to make sure their old games can run would see these tools as a good thing. People who just enjoy reverse engineering by hand wouldn't care this exists, or maybe even, a helpful tutor.

So perhaps then, the sentiment being as negative as it is, is revealing something about the hobby: that many participants, considered the metagame of being the first to do it, to be "smart enough" to have figured it out, the "street cred" if you were, is what they are lamenting, but they just either lack the words, or aren't being honest with themselves.

The question is not how then is one supposed to trust the law, because you already know the answer. The question is what one does about it.

Probably not, the current (and hopefully not continuing) state admin (outside of the governor who has been a nice check against the legislature and judicial insanity here) is very ideologically aligned to the point of trying to find ways to imprison trans people.

They can be, but unfortunately the org has threatened to revoke official regional burn status unless they followed all the same rules, in particular, that children be allowed. There used to be some leeway on that, and there were really wonderful regional burns that did not permit kids. They were forced to, which resulted in the "real" burn being in a small taped off area.

Seems insane to me to think kids should be at burns.

Let's opt for the simplest possible way to describe this.

A good number of the proposals (in particular, the proposals that actually got close to being chosen), are based on lattice constructions.

NTRU's underlying construction has been available to scrutinize for 30 years, whereas the Module-LWE proposals (Kyber being one) has had 11 years. Keep in mind, the largest employer (and under very tight classified controls) of number theorists _is_ the NSA. In terms of overall intellectual power, if there _is_ a problem in the MLWE constructions, they'd very likely be the first to find it, all while not saying a single word. Then, despite clear objections laid out by people with explicit expertise on the distinctions between RLWE and MLWE, especially w/r/t parameter choice, Kyber, under weaker parameters, was chosen anyway.

We can't rely on the obvious tells anymore – they've already played that hand (EC-DRBG) and were caught. If a bad standard is being pushed, it has to be done in a way that is so subtle, that it literally comes up to, "yeah, maybe this is weaker, but we haven't found a way to prove that". DJB already lost the selection process, so now the goal is to at the very least, avoid recommendations that push an unshielded, far less historically tested option, with no helpful antidote if it were to be broken.

I get that generally assuming conspiracies is a bad starting place for debate (after all, how do you disprove a hypothesis that is expected to be so surreptitiously constructed that it evades all ability to be scrutinized?), and I'd similarly think this is an unreasonable assumption, except for the fact _it has already happened and been exposed, multiple times_.

Are you a cryptographer?

I am. I literally hold six patents around secure key generation and management. I stand by DJB's points.

because the NSA has never surreptitiously pushed bad standards they used to exploit before

/s

> IMO the penalties for corruption in public service jobs (all the way to the top!) should also be outsized to match the damage it does to society.

Tough to do when those who write the laws are a part of the problem. What do you suggest to make this so?