Yes, poor communicators like you depend on audience to work around their own limitations. But if audience think of more possibilities than the limited intellect of such poor communicators can grasp, you guys get crazy.
Stating a position and supporting? You have held multiple positions about how many reasons you yourself claim to have for using "executable" files for encryption testing:
1. Asking whether an executable can be trusted, without stating the purpose.
2. It took multiple hints for you to realize that this was idiotic, a file can have many purposes, with different trust profiles.
3. For all I know, you still haven't fully realized how idiotic it was to ask if any one trusts a file without starting the purpose of the file - I've tried "educating" you with one miniscule example - and there are thousands. 10,000 posts, and we might get somewhere.
This brings me to the point about educating : it happens when given an opportunity to think for oneself : after 5 hints, even *you* could understand, all by yourself, that maybe purpose of the file was relevant to its trustability - there is a long way to go but it's a start.
Because I thought the other reason was obvious to someone of at least average intelligence and, therefore, went without saying. Oh, I get it... you're being pedantic.
Yes, so you maintain there are only 2 reasons and no third is possible :
One of the reasons you do state : making sure it remains executable.
Other you stated later, and provisionally I can imagine you considering it obvious, though highly unlikely : the reason being that it is the only option.
Don't you think being able to think only these 2 reasons seriously undermines the perception of your ability to understand simple things?
My last IQ test, within the past month or so, places me in the top 3% of the population, since you mention it
Yes, claiming this doesn't take much intelligence. Demonstrating, which you are failing at, does.
Furthermore, my statement was not that there is no reason to use an executable for testing encryption unless it is the only file available, a position you attempted to attack though I never held it
Speaking of which, what the fuck does any of this have to do with trusting a binary?
With your IQ, possibly you might understand it in a year if you try hard. The clues are in this post as well, though only clear enough for a 6 year old non-developmentally-challenged human.
State a third reason for using "executable" for testing encryption other than: 1. Executable being the only file available 2. Making sure that it remains executable
So you don't stand by your statement that there is no reason to test encryption with an executable other than to make sure it remains executable. Interesting that you don't realize it.
OK, you say "There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable, in which case you're going to execute it and, therefore, must trust it.",
And now you do provide a reason for using an executable for non-executable purposes. I've seen smarter baboons than you, though even the dumber ones did need to be thought of as having won.
Maybe not, but that statement seems useless in most contexts. Non falsifiable, non verifiable, pandering to the video game fans, another way of saying the world is going on in Vishnu's dream - a saying probably thousands of years old.
Of course this being/. I haven't watched the full interview, or even read its transcript, so what do I know.
Well, you said "There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable, in which case you're going to execute it and, therefore, must trust it."
Do you take back the statement? Or do you stand by it? So far you've defended it only in the unlikely special case that this was the only option available. How about the general case?
There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable
Wow! Limitations isn't strong enough a word. Just because something is advertized as executable, there is NO REASON to use it for testing encryption? My hope for the world urges me to give you one more chance to think this through.
No it doesn't. Are you human? I've met some humans with low IQ, but your limitations are touching.
Binaries that are in non-executive role e.g. test payload for an encryption program, have a very different trust signature from those in executive role. Liquids, similarly, depending on their role.
Non-omnipotent doesn't mean having to live under the same laws of physics as simulated beings. Super-mario's physics, even after being modeled after ours, is different and less rich.
And we don't even know if our simulators modeled our physics after theirs, let alone it being the same.
He offers no proof but at least acknowledges the possibility that he may be wrong. You on the other hand offer no proof but seem certain that you are right (that he is wrong).
Bruce didn't claim here to be certain that Elon is wrong. Bruce said that Elon's statement explains nothing. Similar to how "God created us" doesn't explain our existence.
Elon also doesn't acknowledge that he may be wrong (except by not forcing everyone to swear by it by all that is holy) - he estimates the chances of us (at least him and one other person) not living in a simulation. So he acknowledges that we may not be living in a simulation, but doesn't acknowledge that his estimate of the probability may be wrong - which is his actual statement.
Occam's razor can never fall apart - by definition. It can fall apart in retrospect, though. Similar to how it is always today, but what is today today is yesterday tomorrow.
How? Because the idea is that if there are multiple explanations which EQUALLY explain all known relevant observations - choose the simpler / simplest one. As soon as an observation comes along that makes the erstwhile simpler explanation false - Occam's razor no more prefers that explanation. NOW, Occam's razor prefers the simplest of the remaining explanations.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, poor communicators like you depend on audience to work around their own limitations. But if audience think of more possibilities than the limited intellect of such poor communicators can grasp, you guys get crazy.
Stating a position and supporting? You have held multiple positions about how many reasons you yourself claim to have for using "executable" files for encryption testing:
1. Asking whether an executable can be trusted, without stating the purpose.
2. It took multiple hints for you to realize that this was idiotic, a file can have many purposes, with different trust profiles.
3. For all I know, you still haven't fully realized how idiotic it was to ask if any one trusts a file without starting the purpose of the file - I've tried "educating" you with one miniscule example - and there are thousands. 10,000 posts, and we might get somewhere.
This brings me to the point about educating : it happens when given an opportunity to think for oneself : after 5 hints, even *you* could understand, all by yourself, that maybe purpose of the file was relevant to its trustability - there is a long way to go but it's a start.
Then why did you say...
Because I thought the other reason was obvious to someone of at least average intelligence and, therefore, went without saying. Oh, I get it... you're being pedantic.
Yes, so you maintain there are only 2 reasons and no third is possible :
One of the reasons you do state : making sure it remains executable.
Other you stated later, and provisionally I can imagine you considering it obvious, though highly unlikely : the reason being that it is the only option.
Don't you think being able to think only these 2 reasons seriously undermines the perception of your ability to understand simple things?
My last IQ test, within the past month or so, places me in the top 3% of the population, since you mention it
Yes, claiming this doesn't take much intelligence. Demonstrating, which you are failing at, does.
Furthermore, my statement was not that there is no reason to use an executable for testing encryption unless it is the only file available, a position you attempted to attack though I never held it
Then why did you say There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable, in which case you're going to execute it and, therefore, must trust it.
Speaking of which, what the fuck does any of this have to do with trusting a binary?
With your IQ, possibly you might understand it in a year if you try hard. The clues are in this post as well, though only clear enough for a 6 year old non-developmentally-challenged human.
State a third reason for using "executable" for testing encryption other than:
1. Executable being the only file available
2. Making sure that it remains executable
So you don't stand by your statement that there is no reason to test encryption with an executable other than to make sure it remains executable. Interesting that you don't realize it.
OK, you say "There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable, in which case you're going to execute it and, therefore, must trust it.",
And now you do provide a reason for using an executable for non-executable purposes. I've seen smarter baboons than you, though even the dumber ones did need to be thought of as having won.
Maybe not, but that statement seems useless in most contexts. Non falsifiable, non verifiable, pandering to the video game fans, another way of saying the world is going on in Vishnu's dream - a saying probably thousands of years old.
Of course this being /. I haven't watched the full interview, or even read its transcript, so what do I know.
Well, you said "There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable, in which case you're going to execute it and, therefore, must trust it."
Do you take back the statement? Or do you stand by it? So far you've defended it only in the unlikely special case that this was the only option available. How about the general case?
Can there be no other reason than to make sure it remains executable?
Can there be no other reason than to make sure it remains executable? After all you have learnt recently?
Having learnt this, how do you react to "Just because something is advertized as executable, there is NO REASON to use it for testing encryption? "
What if I tell you that using a file doesn't mean it is the only available file ?
Yes, think "Why would it be the only available file?"
Or would it ?
Yup, half the fun could be an amazing set of laws of physics.
And why would you assume "over any other file" ?
There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable
Wow! Limitations isn't strong enough a word. Just because something is advertized as executable, there is NO REASON to use it for testing encryption? My hope for the world urges me to give you one more chance to think this through.
No it doesn't. Are you human? I've met some humans with low IQ, but your limitations are touching.
Binaries that are in non-executive role e.g. test payload for an encryption program, have a very different trust signature from those in executive role. Liquids, similarly, depending on their role.
And you're the one who doesn't state the purpose of a liquid or a software binary before asking if it can be "trusted" or accepted.
Non-omnipotent doesn't mean having to live under the same laws of physics as simulated beings. Super-mario's physics, even after being modeled after ours, is different and less rich.
And we don't even know if our simulators modeled our physics after theirs, let alone it being the same.
Why would laws of physics in the simulator world bear any resemblance to the laws of physics in our world ?
Then too just your memory of your perception.
He offers no proof but at least acknowledges the possibility that he may be wrong. You on the other hand offer no proof but seem certain that you are right (that he is wrong).
Bruce didn't claim here to be certain that Elon is wrong. Bruce said that Elon's statement explains nothing. Similar to how "God created us" doesn't explain our existence.
Elon also doesn't acknowledge that he may be wrong (except by not forcing everyone to swear by it by all that is holy) - he estimates the chances of us (at least him and one other person) not living in a simulation. So he acknowledges that we may not be living in a simulation, but doesn't acknowledge that his estimate of the probability may be wrong - which is his actual statement.
While true, that is not the point. The point is whether a proof CAN exist.
Occam's razor can never fall apart - by definition. It can fall apart in retrospect, though. Similar to how it is always today, but what is today today is yesterday tomorrow.
How? Because the idea is that if there are multiple explanations which EQUALLY explain all known relevant observations - choose the simpler / simplest one. As soon as an observation comes along that makes the erstwhile simpler explanation false - Occam's razor no more prefers that explanation. NOW, Occam's razor prefers the simplest of the remaining explanations.