I think I watched a good video from Numberphile and/or Matt Parker on this but I can't seem to find it now. IIRC it was used as an alternative proof for Fermat's last theorem.
This explains the 6n situation pretty concisely though:
Is indefinite retention and archival of all the shit put online really good for anyone other than AI feeding? When encryption eventually breaks and all our old private emails, AIMs, and other junk can be searched as easily as Shodan are we really going to be glad we have an extensive digital history?
I don't think it's as simple as more data = better.
One is owned and operated in a country of authoritarian-level data-collection and massive public propaganda and the other is owned and operated by a company in Russian which isn't any better but still determines the media narrative.
Especially after Cambridge Analytica, it honestly wouldn't be too much of a tin foil hat theory to imagine a world where state actors such as the IRA would come up with a viral app like this to scoop up data and influence the elections again.
Too many environmentally minded people are under the impression that environmental preservation means holding an ecological system in stasis to prevent change. I think this is a decent article showing a few of the reasons that those ideas need a little rethinking on what it means to help the environment.
Disagree: Environmentalists (at least here in California) understand that fire has a role in forest management. Parties opposed to that course of action are the homeowners in the forests and portions of the timber industry who would prefer to log the unnaturally dense forests (caused by fire suppression).
It's worth considering that this angle is frequently and aggressively pushed by parties which want to discredit all environmentalists for various reasons.
One decent underwater rock-slide in Hawaii will end the need to debate conservation in California. Likewise in the Azores for New Jersey. Nature doesn't judge nor plan, it just happens.
I promise you that for the most commonly used TSA approved locks, this is not true. Many models consist of 2-3 pins and can be open in 1 second by jamming anything that fits into the the channel and wiggling.
I don't think writing to Congress has really ever been the problem, I think the problem is accountability.
The two things we need to see in one place are our representatives voting records for a given topic, and accurate data about what the constituents of that representative desired.
I'm not saying this is an easy thing to solve, mostly because getting accurate data about what constituent want, and doing it correctly, essentially means building an online voting system. That isn't easy, but that is exactly what we need.
Real. Transparent. Democracy.
[Edit]
The accountability application wouldn't need to be binding, it just needs to accurately show if the representative is actually representing the will of the people. It should provide one citizen one vote per pole/bill, provide information about the percentage of the constituency that's registered and voted, and compare those results to the representatives actual vote. I believe that authenticating citizens and public participation would be the biggest hurdles to a system like this.
At the very least this would raise awareness and stimulate conversations between representatives and constituents.
Congress people are quite accountable already. The problem is that they are accountable to gerrymandered districts so they are basically guaranteed support on their extreme ideas. Every time the public gets actually upset about something, the system works, everyone flips on a dime. The problem is systemic at a very high level. There are a few other problems I could describe, but they are also structural and prevent the will of the people from being accurately expressed. Once you resolve the accuracy issue, you can get into real political problems rather than manufactured ones.
Encrypting everything promotes individual agency, the freedom of an individual to communicate solely (encryption) and certainly (MAC) with whomever that individual chooses. Cryptographic protocols do not inherently cause performance or logistics complications (Resource usage, content isolation) as these are side effects of other underlying issues with the technology upon which we implement cryptography and can be fixed without compromising the security of cryptography.
The only argument against pervasive solid encryption with potential validity is external-party bypassing; where the external-party is outside the intended group of involved parties (Bob & Alice) and wishes to access or manipulate the secured communications. The most obvious situation being some external authority wishing to prevent or prosecute a crime.
Traditionally, in the US, you (and your property) have agency until a warrant, subpena, or probable cause arises. At this point, and no sooner, the acting authority suspends some part of that agency for the assumed greater good of the society and begins collecting evidence through an established process. Without this suspension of agency the authority, traditionally, cannot and should not be treating you or your property with reduced agency; the authority should not be preemptively diminishing your agency by starting that evidence collection process (compromising protections) with zero probably cause.
It is the problem and responsibility of that authority, as set out by the social contract of free agents comprising our society, to reduce agency and collect evidence AFTER probably cause arises and NOT as the default against every citizen.
I agree, the fact that they are selling asymmetric internet plans should show that they're clearly aware that the average internet user pulls down far more data than they upload, but (according the Verizon) Netflix's asymmetric traffic is a complete surprise and a burden so Netflix should also pay Verizon for the additional asymmetric traffic being requested by Verizon's customers (who already paid for it).
It's not "additional" traffic if it is within the limits that the Verizon customer paid for (which they did). Verizon just sold something they weren't willing to provide.
