fidotron

The single biggest/best thing Intel could do is get back into memory. Their entire remaining business is now throttled on everyone else being able to supply memory, on top of whatever other competition they were already experiencing.

For the same reason that during the era of x86 dominance all x86 competitors were not valued as highly as Intel.

Now I'm getting my hopes up of someone porting OSX Tiger to Apple Silicon natively . . .

Provincial governments are way too happy with sin taxes in general, to the point of encouraging the vices they supposedly want to reduce.

The entire concept of sin taxes distorts the incentives for govs too much. If something is to be discouraged then do that, but do not have government revenue attached to people performing the discouraged activity.

Standard regulator strategy: try to make the one thing you actually want to comply be the odd one out and then point at them going "but why not you too?" (The FTC do this as well).

4chan was absolutely the defining target of this wave of noise, but X is what really bothers the UK establishment.

Basic property rights. If they weren't breaking Dutch laws then the server shouldn't be seizable.

Let's see the Dutch get a US based server that is violating Dutch laws. It will never happen.

That's exactly what the US do though. We recently saw server seizures in Amsterdam, there is the US Cloud act and so on.

The US fundamentally disagrees with other countries on the limits of their own jurisdiction to include basically anything tangentially related to the US.

Again, I am far from anti-US but any outsider can see this for what it is: a one way street.

While Ofcom were barmy to even try this there is a level of understandable annoyance outside the US that the US does get to project what it wants and other countries don't, and somewhere that will have contributed to supporting the effort to do this.

While the US isn't perfect it is also far from the worst conceivable entity to be in that position (and current UK and Australian governments provide easy examples). If they want to use their influence to promote free speech then good, because we need it. Just less of the mass surveillance of absolutely everyone at the same time, then we'd be good.

Same phenomenon as all the godfathers of AI that were apparently oblivious to the plot of the Terminator franchise until after their paychecks had cleared.

I'm only posting like this because they already are.

Then why not turn this around and say which (hopefully small set of) specific classes of curves are known to be avoided, but otherwise have a free for all?

> If that many curves are bad, then ECC was a mistake.

I mean that is the logical conclusion from the behaviour around this approach where a few good things are effectively endorsed without justification.

The fact is any application of an algorithm that involves so much "trust me bro" on the selection of what are a large number of opaque quasi random but not quite or provably so numbers only has as much trust in it as you have in the people that created it.

Exactly.

When they made the changes to the s boxes for differential cryptanalysis resistance the entire concept of that was essentially secret, so who knows what they know about elliptic curves.

It doesn't prove anything about the core part of the suspicion, which is they were selected using some undisclosed criteria, which may make them weaker or stronger than some other random numbers.

You are entirely familiar with the precedent of the DES s boxes of course, where that is exactly what happened.

While this confirms the method of production it doesn't say anything about their selection, especially since they were, apparently, generated over a period of months. Specifically you cannot see those candidates that were generated and discarded.

"It is still conceivable that these curves were selected to have a specific property in principle by searching over timestamps to the random number generator."

Yes.

"However, you would only need to do that if you were going to disclose the timestamp as some evidence that the seed was innocuously generated."

Does not logically follow when "doing and saying nothing" will completely suffice.