there’s been some (what appears to me to be) remarkable progress in the field, in that I know that it’s possible to create intentional structures. it’s very much not my field so I can’t speak to it in detail, I think the best way I could describe where I understand it to be is that it’s like people building with lego, if that makes sense?

but yeah it’s still a damn far way off from what we’d call “gene programming” as we have “computer programming”

they really should shove sbf and holmes in the same yard. they can shack up and con each other, and we wouldn’t have to keep hearing all these insane interviews

market potential: all trustfund babies

highest tech battlefield gopnik discomobile

0% fucks given: I have seen exactly one episode of The Simpsons, ever. I’ve seen some clips and snippets here and there, other than that nada

a fairly sizable chunk of everything, generally.

this is a remarkably interesting thing with a surprisingly narrow scope. I don’t know mil hardware/history well enough so I’m curious: would such opto-electric ewar actually have been a meaningful capability?

I can make a report on your case file but I don’t think they’ve replaced the 7 process supervisors they fired last year. there’s only Jo now and they seem to be in the office 24x7

gonna be “real good” when this starts happening to important-detail emails, like medical or insurance matters

imagine a legal demand getting caught up in this?

and yahoo’s probably just gonna shrug

cc @dgerard

haha, it’s starting to happen: even fucking fortune is running a piece that throwing big piles of money on ever-larger training has done exactly fuckall to make this nonsense go anywhere

google’s on their shit again

can’t sneer it properly just yet, there’s a lot

I was not aware of this, failed my constitution roll, and have taken psychic damage

heh yup. I think the most recent one (somewhere in the last year) was something like 12-bit rsa? stupendously far off from being a meaningful thing

I’ll readily admit to being a cryptography mutt and a qc know-barely-anything, and even from my limited understanding the assessment of where people are at (with how many qubits they’ve managed to achieve in practical systems) everything is hilariously woefully far off ito attacks

that doesn’t entirely invalidate pqc and such (since the notion there is not merely defending against today/soon but also a significant timeline)

one thing I am curious about (and which you might’ve seen or be able to talk about, blake): is there any kind of known correlation between qubits and viable attacks? I realize part of this quite strongly depends on the attack method as well, but off the cuff I have a guess (“intuition” is probably the wrong word) that it probably scales some weird way (as opposed to linear/log/exp)

those opinions should come with a whiplash warning, fucking hell

can’t wait to once again hear that someone is sure we’re “just overreacting” and that star of david passbooks voter ID laws will be totes fine. I’m sure it’ll be a really lovely conversation with a perfectly sensible and caring human. :|

ah, the novel QC RSA attack: shaking the algorithm so much it gets annoyed and gives up the plaintext out of desperation

we already have hilbert curves, you don’t need to go fill space just because it’s there

“judge every molecule” and “simulation hypothesis” probably have a bit of a fling going

even this he has to ruin

the sidebar has a link (the TESCREAL one) which may also be illuminating

as to the rest, yuuuuuup. that’s why sneerclub and techtakes exist.