Killing time are you being intentionally obtuse just to kill time?

How is real estate wealth not consequential?Real estate wealth is real wealth, it’s why it’s literally in the name.

Personal income tax is not a wealth tax, and there are myriad ways to avoid it without evading it.

It’s a wealth tax on wealth that’s very difficult to hide.

So how does generating a one time pad from mutually accessible data fit into this scheme. Is the pad the cipher or the key?

If two people agreed that the pad would be the output of a particular pRNG given the 3rd paragraph of the second article on the third page of that day’s newspaper as a seed.

The attack vector would be shortcomings in the pRNG I guess? Which could result in the possibility of some sort of statistical language attack?

Or the attacker could guess the newspaper text & algorithm.

Neat, yeah Wikipedia says steam cipher approximate one time pads but can also be completely insecure.

I think it would take one hell of an effort to crack, it would be like 3MB encryption right? Or if they guessed the scheme they could try all mp3s ever torrented XOR’ed in every possible combination.

Idk I think there’s something workable there but I only having a casual knowledge

Also I think OP wanted pen and paper so maybe use a book instead digital files.

I’m certainly not an expert.

But could you generate pads from mutually accessible data sources?

Like use hit_me_baby_one_more_time_not_a_virus.mp3 appended with a password, as a seed in a pseudo random number generating algorithm, then do the same thing with another data source, repeat however many times, then XOR the generated numbers together, and use the result as a pad?

I think schopenhauer’s quote:

to overcome difficulties if to experience the full delight of existence context

is a corollary of sorts.

I always go pat down. I prefer to understand the scope of the privacy violation also I think it’s good to have a physical reminder of the ways our privacy is invaded.

What unhealthy eating habit are you indulging in at 21:45?

This is my concern. Not that he wants to manipulate her to harm her, but that he wants to “save her”. Her being subjected to that pressure could seriously damage her relationship with her family.

Ahh yes sexual harassment for hire. Great idea. Maybe we should have an MMA experience we can order for our foes too.

“I must destroy all evidence of this”

I mean both really

I reckon if you’re doing the work involved in managing a rental property yourself, you’re doing work and providing a service.

If you expect an employee/contractor to do all that for you, but to still collect profits: what would you say you do here?

I don’t give money to panhandlers because I don’t like being solicited. (Also why I don’t buy things at my door, or via telemarketing) however I do support the idea of programs distributing funds directly to those in need.

I just watched The Cynical Historian’s review of the recent Napoleon flick. It was great. The review I mean, not the movie. It tried to tell Napoleon’s whole story, which is just not feasible in the span of a single film.

I had no idea there were 7 coalition wars, that’s crazy.

I support robust enforcement of anti hate speech laws. In fact I’ve reported hate speech/ hatecrime to the police before.

We’re not talking about laws, we’re talking about social media platform policies.

Social media platforms connect people from regions with different hatespeech laws so " enforcing hatespeech laws" is impossible to do consistently.

If users engage in crimes using the platform they are subject to the laws that they are subject to.

I don’t care that it’s legal to advocate for genocide where a preacher is located, or at the corporation’s preferred jurisdiction, I don’t want my son reading it.

The question was: is there a way a platform can be totally free speech and stop hate speech. I think the answer is “kinda”

I think it may be possible if you understand a difference between the right to speak and the right to be heard.

Ie the right to say something doesn’t create an obligation in others to hear it, nor to hear you in the future.

If I stand up on a milk crate in the middle of a city park to preach the glory of closed source operating systems, it doesn’t infringe my right to free speech if someone posts a sign that says “Microsoft shill ahead” and offers earplugs at the park entrance. People can choose to believe the sign or not.

A social media platform could automate the signs and earplugs. By allowing users to set thresholds of the discourse acceptable to them on different topics, and the platform could evaluate (through data analysis or crowd sourced feedback) whether comments and/or commenters met that threshold.

I think this would largely stop people from experiencing hatespeech, (one they had their thresholds appropriately dialed in) and disincentivize hatespeech without actually infringing anybody’s right to say whatever they want.

There would definitely be challenges though.

If a person wants to be protected from experiencing hatespeech they need to empower some-one/thing to censor media for them which is a risk.

Properly evaluating content for hatespeech/ otherwise objectionable speech is difficult. Upvotes and downvotes are an attempt to do this in a very coarse way. That/this system assumes that all users have a shared view of what content is worth seeing on a given topic and that all votes are equally credible. In a small community of people, with similar values, that aren’t trying to manipulate the system, it’s a reasonable approach. It doesn’t scale that well.

Yeah that’s a good point. Maybe I should amend my statement to say something like:

If this seems like an absurd hypothetical, consider reframing it. Multiply all the numbers by a factor of between 1,000 to 1,000,000 and make them “our soldiers”, “bystanders” and “enemy soldiers” respectively.

I think these scenarios might be easier to analyze if we made them a bit more realistic.

This an analogy for military intervention. If we empower our military to be proactive, we can save one "good guy"^TM by killing 3 bystanders. But if NATO’s adversaries are participating too we lose 3 of our "good guy"^TM