elias_griffin
@elias_griffin@lemmy.world
Desert Nomad, First Responder, Reverend, Intelligence Analyst, Computer Expert, Sorcerer, Polymath
- Comment on Microsoft’s AI boss thinks it’s perfectly OK to steal content if it’s on the open web 11 hours ago:
In fact just the other day information wanted a ham sandwhich before I set it free so it could find more people not on an empty stomach :/
- Comment on Microsoft’s AI boss thinks it’s perfectly OK to steal content if it’s on the open web 13 hours ago:
Copyright Infringment strawman arguement. When considering AI, we are not talking legal copyright infringement in the relationship between humans vs AI. Humans are mostly concerned with being obsoleted by Big Tech so the real issue is Intellectual Property Theft.
artificial INTELLIGENCE stole our Intellectual Property
Do you see it now?
- Comment on Microsoft’s AI boss thinks it’s perfectly OK to steal content if it’s on the open web 13 hours ago:
Oh yeah, tell me about Intellectual Property, Patent, Invention, and Ideation thievery, was it still there afterwards? IP theft has been recognized for centuries.
Back to the basement Mustafa Jr…
- Comment on Microsoft’s AI boss thinks it’s perfectly OK to steal content if it’s on the open web 14 hours ago:
Look at this AI paid influencer everybody! Who pays you Mustafa Jr? Most everyone knows that AI is gigging them now. When you steal from the world, that is definite hate but It was meant in the aggregate, stupified salacious simpleton.
P.S. Take your “Capitalism Sucks” Marxist bullshit back to Russia, Vatnik and take Mustafa with you.
- Comment on Microsoft’s AI boss thinks it’s perfectly OK to steal content if it’s on the open web 1 day ago:
So Mustafa steals from the entire world and justifies it by pointing to an abstraction that cannot be proven. It’s already complete as they can admit it now and throw Billions at corrupt judges.
These tech-god pyschopaths hate us.
- Comment on I Will Fucking Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again — Ludicity 1 week ago:
Masterful wordsmithing, I must find a place for this quote in my future writing. I’ll save and credit.
- Comment on I Will Fucking Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again — Ludicity 1 week ago:
I want to confirm this. Hacker News is nothing like it used to be and is approaching the cliff of “group think” narrator, the opposite of Entrepreneurship.
- Comment on I Will Fucking Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again — Ludicity 1 week ago:
This gets a vote from me for for “Best of the Internet 2024”, brilliant pacing, super braced, and with precision bluntness. I’m going to pretend the Monero remark is not even there, that’s how good it was.
- Comment on NetBSD bans all commits of AI-generated code 1 month ago:
So proud of you NetBSD, this is why I sponsor you, slam dunk for the future. I’m working on a NetBSD hardening script and Rice as we speak, great OS with some fantastically valuable niche applications and I think, a new broad approach I’m cooking up, a University Edition. I did hardening for all the other BSD, I saved the best for last!
If you would like to vote on whether, or by what year, AI will be in the Linux Kernel on Infosec.space:
- Comment on The Verge shows how Google search is useless 1 month ago:
Best breadcrumb from article:
I wanted to understand: what kind of human spends their days exploiting our dumbest impulses for traffic and profit? Who the hell are these [SEO/Google] people making money off of everyone else’s misery?
- Comment on Why a kilobyte is 1000 and not 1024 bytes 5 months ago:
I feel bad for you OP, I get this a lot and I’m totally gonna go there because I feel your pain and your article was fantastic! I read almost every word ;p
This phenomena stems from an aversion to high-confidence people who make highly logical arguments from low self-confidence people who basically make themselves feel unworthy/inadequate when justly critiqued/busted. It makes sense for them to feel that way too, I empathize. It’s hard to overcome the vapid rewarding and inflation in school. They should feel cheated and indolent at this whole situation.
I’ll be honest in front of the internet; people (in majority mind you, say 70-80% of Americans, I’m American) do not read every word of the article with full attention because of ever present and prevelant distractions, attention deficit, and motivation. They skip sentences or even paragraphs of things they are expecting they already know, apply bias before the conclusion, do not suspend their own perspective to understand yours for only a brief time, and come from a skeptical position no matter if they agreed with it or not!
In general, people also wants to feel they have some valid perspective “truth” (as it’s all relative to them) of their own to add and they want to be validated and acknowledged for it, as in school.
Guess what though, Corporations, Schools, Market Analysis, Novelists, PR people, Video Game Makers, Communications Managers and Small and Medium Business already know this! They even take a much more, ehh, progressive? approach about it, let’s say. That is, to really not let them speak/feedback, at all. Nearly all comment sections are gone from websites, comment boxes are gone from retail shops, customer service is a bot, technical writers make videos now to go over what they just wrote, Newspapers write for 4th graders, etc., etc.
Nothing you said is even remotely condescending and nothing you said was out of order. Don’t defend yourself in these situations because it’s just encouragement for them to do it again. Don’t take it personally yourself, that is just the state of things.
Improvise, Adapt, Re-engineer, Re-deploy, Overcome, repeat until done.
- Comment on 4-year campaign backdoored iPhones using possibly the most advanced exploit ever 5 months ago:
Skill is certainly one evaluation parameter and Fin7, JokerStash, Carbanak fit that bill but that is not their MO. Target, motive, opportunity -> Embassy Employees/Diplomats -> Nation-State or Intergovernmental Group (like 5/9/14 eyes) as eval combined with skill rating, @95% confidence.
- Comment on 4-year campaign backdoored iPhones using possibly the most advanced exploit ever 5 months ago:
I recently invented a “People First” Cybersecurity Vulnerability Scoring method and I called it CITE, Civilian Internet Threat Evaluation with many benefits over CVSS. In it, I prioritize “exploit chains” as the primary threat going forward. Low and behold, this new exploit, although iOS, possibly one of the most sophisticated attacks ever using one of the longest exploit chains ever! Proof positive!
Depending on how you define it; I define the Kaspersky diagram has 8 steps. In my system, I define steps that advance the exploit discretely as stages, so I would evaluated Triangulation to be a 4 stage exploit chain. I should tally this attack to see how it scores and make a CITE-REP(ort).
You can read about it if interested. An intersting modeling problem for me was does stages always equate to complexity? Number of exploits in the chain make it easier or harder to intrusion detect given that it was designed as a chain, maybe to prevent just that? How are stages, complexity, chains and remediation evaluted inversely?
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
The comments are full of drivel, but I’ll pick this one to respond to as you sound educated and able to re-formulate concepts but lack open-mindedness and novel application of concepts. Plus, your response is full of institutional verbage, first level thinking, shallow understanding, which sounds great to the uneducated and low IS posters, but doesn’t even pass the first test so it easy to disassemble.
1 + 1 = 2 isn’t an axiom, it’s math, equality, and true. This is exactly what the perspective point I was trying to make! Truth itself cannot be axiomatic! This is so self-evident it is hard to comprehend how your education can lead you to one of the largest fundamental misunderstands in Science, but I guess that is not surprising. I mean, your post is a testament to misunderstanding reality, an reference to be studied in the future of post-Idiocracy. It in fact provides a broader understanding of post comments, Lemmy, and social media in general.
My definition as I understood it before looking it up is an axiom is a logical statement true on it’s face that serves as foundation for another step. Let us look at the some definitions for Axiom.
Tutors An axiom is a basic statement assumed to be true and requiring no proof of its truthfulness. It is a fundamental underpinning for a set of logical statements. Not everything counts as an axiom. It must be simple, make a useful statement about an undefined term, evidently true with a minimum of thought, and contribute to an axiomatic system (not be a random construct).
Mathigon One interesting question is where to start from. How do you prove the first theorem, if you don’t know anything yet? Unfortunately you can’t prove something using nothing. You need at least a few building blocks to start with, and these are called Axioms.
Wikipedia An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning ‘that which is thought worthy or fit’ or ‘that which commends itself as evident’.[1][2]
Wolfram An axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof. The word “axiom” is a slightly archaic synonym for postulate. Compare conjecture or hypothesis, both of which connote apparently true but not self-evident statements.
You may use first level thinking about Propositions so to avoid more non-sense here is an another explainer.
Let me hammer it home again, the principle of my argument, to give you repeated attempts to understand and forego your ego 1 + 1 = 2 cannot be a proposition, an axiom, and proof, a logical statement that evaluates to true, it is already true and by definitions above it is:
- Defined
- Does not serve to prove a logical statement
- Does not serve as further reasoning.
Saying 1 + 1 = 2 serves as foundation for something else is like saying my car accelerates because of motion or momentum which is generic, imprecise, not a proof, and worthless. Movement is already motion. Your car accelerates because of a gas engine. Again, please think deeply about this, no shallow thoughts. What I’m trying to do is go beyond and surpass common knowledge, to push the envelope further than before using the scientific method to challenge old constructs.
I would challenge any Mathematician anywhere and I meant to. 1 + 1 = 2 is what is, a truth, true, fundamental building block of all things and requires no reasoning. If a toddler picks up another stick, it knows it has two whether it can convey that thought-form in a way we understand it or not. Saying 1 + 1 = 2 is Axiomatic is like saying Oxygen is an axiom or axiomatic. To further build the periodic table. No, Oxygen just is, a fundamental piece of reality which is also true! Maybe someone will understand in the future.
My aim was to put this comment up for posterity as wasting more time here is fruitless so don’t take it personally really, I just used your most educated and almost right post as an example of how that if intellectual debate is to be sought, it certainly isn’t on Lemmy which is I would say mediocre at best, and in fact, one is surely to get misinformed, ugly responses.
I will use all the debate that went on in my head in trying to combat this circus into a proper Academia.edu Paper. Really, my whole point was the second part of my post where I thought it was quite clear the logical conclusion to which would be that programming lanaguages need to be re-engineered! No one even put that together that I saw!
I skipped all the mean comments.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
I would say in programmer terms that would be a less strict evaluation of Science. Science strives for Truth through experimentation and peer proofing, but it’s purpose is the seeking of truth. So purpose and now state. I would also say if “the state of Science” is least wrong, then we would be no where as advanced as we are. The Scientific Method is about proving the most right.
Science has uncovered an incredible amount of truths and we use those truths everywhere around us, Chemistry is a good example. If the rules of chemistry weren’t true and correct, then the formulas would fail.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
The terms belief and true seem to be self-evident and I’m trying to frame this to spur brainstorming about why they aren’t congrous. Belief usually goes along with Religion, as in, there is small/little proof, but one may chose to believe it or not. Where true I could say is impervious to belief. It exists whether you believe in it or not.
Stated another way, 1 + 1 = 2 is true. Is there anything there to believe or not believe? I’m breaking that down into just 1.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
Oh look, trolling that conflates my post with conspiracy theory where none is present. Convienent in building a false narrative and reputation harm.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
Burying my post in misinformed, spiteful, authoritative comments and votes. This is such a well-formed and intelligent unique thought-form and most importantly, not News. I was hoping for enlightened responses, even disagreeable ones. That way a productive discussion could be had!
Inside the British Army’s secret information warfare machine They are soldiers, but the 77th Brigade edit videos, record podcasts and write viral posts. Welcome to the age of information warfare
etc, etc.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
Since no mysticism was used, but logical proofs and pseudocode, then meandering to 0 (funny double meaning there), I’m gonna go with you misunderstanding it completely.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
While being the very thing you accuse me of, pedantic and insufferable, the often used Phrase is demonstrably wrong and is used in a way so as to be coercive. Your mind wandering rant including teachers and authorities in Science is laughable and gives you away.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
Yet another.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
Another perspective. If Science does not produce truth? What is it good for? What does then produce Truth we can participate in and acknowledge?
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
Let me also affirm in this way, maybe this will help. What does the Scientific Method produce? It’s produces evidence/conclusions and theories. Moreso, it produces what we know as Science.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
I can appreciate this perspective, but what you’re referring to is the Scientific Method. Science is the field of the sum of all knowledge, Science as it is used, “settled”, meaneed, thought, correctly, by most is, “what is”.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 6 months ago:
Double Perspective: 1 is the truest darn thing I can concieve of. In fact, if we can’t count on 1 being true, we can count on anything.
- Submitted 6 months ago to technology@lemmy.world | 34 comments
- Comment on PSA: If you're tired of political posts in Technology, block user L4 6 months ago:
Really odd some Lemmy choices, allowing News Aggregation Posts (Simple link and summary) from a particular user that is somehow not flagged a bot/influencer/paid. I duna know how you can post Tech News Links 10 times a day, every day, for 5 months and still be allowed to post as a “person”.
- Comment on Boffins convert typing sounds into text with 95% accuracy 6 months ago:
Is it ignorance, indemnity, or conspiracy that this article didn’t give the primary mitigation?
A white noise generator.
- Comment on Great! I like getting tracked by 766 third parties! thanks Outlook 6 months ago:
Also, it’s the language scam of the decade to have a [privacy] agreement or terms with a “third party” which is basically anonymous/anyone/indeterminate/changing/.
- Comment on Just a JSON file in Windows 11 enables Edge, Bing, and Search ads removal 6 months ago:
A programming language cannot compromise your liberties.
As a decades experienced security professional myself I can tell you that people reading are not taking what you say seriously so I don’t have to respond and tediously break apart that swath of misinformation.
Minus point for parroting me.
