Topic: We could stop data breaches tomorrow.
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 hours ago #138,528
1. - Companies must purge all data related to inactive accounts and customers within six months of an ended relationship.
2. - Companies must employ two-factor authentication and encrypt all data at rest related to customer information.
3. - In the event of a breach a company must provide all those whose records are affected with 36 months of credit monitoring and $5,000 in compensation.
Breaches would stop tomorrow.
2. - Companies must employ two-factor authentication and encrypt all data at rest related to customer information.
3. - In the event of a breach a company must provide all those whose records are affected with 36 months of credit monitoring and $5,000 in compensation.
Breaches would stop tomorrow.
Sir Carves-A-Lot !nFL78DnUTg joined in and replied with this 5 hours ago, 46 seconds later[^] [v] #1,464,844
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 5 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,845
4. We destroy the internet entirely.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 5 hours ago, 24 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,853
@previous (C)
> 4. We destroy the internet entirely.
It would be odd to go back to analog, though I enjoy my decaying and difficult to repair or replace VHS player, record player, speakers, and other devices. I even have a typewriter I use sometimes.
> 4. We destroy the internet entirely.
It would be odd to go back to analog, though I enjoy my decaying and difficult to repair or replace VHS player, record player, speakers, and other devices. I even have a typewriter I use sometimes.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 4 hours ago, 42 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,885
AI is finding zero days for systems faster than they can be patched.
Encryption keys will be lifted, and businesses will go bankrupt, and when everyone loses their jobs and is forced to whore themselves on the street at least you can tell yourself that you held corporations accountable.
Encryption keys will be lifted, and businesses will go bankrupt, and when everyone loses their jobs and is forced to whore themselves on the street at least you can tell yourself that you held corporations accountable.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Live&Lemon joined in and replied with this 4 hours ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,886
@previous (E)
And we won’t need software engineers because people who have no idea how computers work can get AI to generate thousands of lines of code that nobody ever reads and be confident there are no security vulnerabilities because our LLM didn’t find any.
And we won’t need software engineers because people who have no idea how computers work can get AI to generate thousands of lines of code that nobody ever reads and be confident there are no security vulnerabilities because our LLM didn’t find any.
Sir Carves-A-Lot !nFL78DnUTg replied with this 4 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,887
Live&Lemon joined in and replied with this 4 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,888
Since LLMs can do math proofs now, why not just vibe code an alternative to AES? What could possibly go wrong?
Anonymous E replied with this 3 hours ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,891
@1,464,886 (Live&Lemon)
Some people will continue to do research and make new things, but most programmers did grunt work, and grunt work can be automated.
For the 99% that basically follow memorized flow charts and repeat simple tasks, we lose nothing by replacing them with AI.
Some people will continue to do research and make new things, but most programmers did grunt work, and grunt work can be automated.
For the 99% that basically follow memorized flow charts and repeat simple tasks, we lose nothing by replacing them with AI.
Live&Lemon joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 24 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,911
@previous (E)
> For the 99% that basically follow memorized flow charts
Clearly you have no clue what you’re talking about.
> For the 99% that basically follow memorized flow charts
Clearly you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,916
@1,464,888 (Live&Lemon)
> Since LLMs can do math proofs now, why not just vibe code an alternative to AES? What could possibly go wrong?
LOL. Can you imagine? Quantum is coming anyway and AES has an end of life in sight. Maybe that will be the takeover. AGI simply quantum encrypts major data.
> Since LLMs can do math proofs now, why not just vibe code an alternative to AES? What could possibly go wrong?
LOL. Can you imagine? Quantum is coming anyway and AES has an end of life in sight. Maybe that will be the takeover. AGI simply quantum encrypts major data.
Anonymous I double-posted this 3 hours ago, 52 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,917
Seriously, imagine a globally scaled ransomware attack that hits major financial systems and national security sites. “We can’t access the nukes, sir. System is offline.”
Live&Lemon replied with this 3 hours ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,921
@1,464,916 (I)
One issue with quantum computers is that quantum mechanics have a degree of randomness. At the most fundamental level, the universe isn’t deterministic, determinism is really just a consequence of probability, if you have one particle the chance it does something is higher, but if you have a thousand the chance they all do the same thing in the same way at the same time is basically zero. The issue that creates is that in order to correct for that, quantum computers need to have built in error correction. But the current issue right now is, the majority of the circuits in a quantum computers are just related to error correction rather than to computation.
One issue with quantum computers is that quantum mechanics have a degree of randomness. At the most fundamental level, the universe isn’t deterministic, determinism is really just a consequence of probability, if you have one particle the chance it does something is higher, but if you have a thousand the chance they all do the same thing in the same way at the same time is basically zero. The issue that creates is that in order to correct for that, quantum computers need to have built in error correction. But the current issue right now is, the majority of the circuits in a quantum computers are just related to error correction rather than to computation.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Live&Lemon double-posted this 3 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,922
Right now it’s in excess of 90% of the circuits in quantum computers are related to error correcting qubits rather than performing computation.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Live&Lemon triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,923
Because of that there’s a difference between physical qubits and logical qubits, what matters for breaking encryption is the logical qubits not the physical qubits. That’s why if you look online you’ll see impressing sounding numbers for how many qubits current quantum computers have, but if you google the logical qubits which is what actually matters, it’s less impressive (so far). Hopefully that changes and humanity progresses, but this is still in its infancy.
Live&Lemon quadruple-posted this 2 hours ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,925
There’s also an idea that the human brain might utilize quantum effects to some degree, so consciousness and free will might actually both exist and both be impossible to simulate via a classical computer. Although science hasn’t progressed to the point where you can say that without somebody having a problem with it.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,948
@1,464,921 (Live&Lemon)
Just because we can't predict something doesn't make it random.
Our tools emit particles that are too big to get accurate measurements for certain tests, but a physical limit on measurement isn't equivalent to those particles actually being random.
Just because we can't predict something doesn't make it random.
Our tools emit particles that are too big to get accurate measurements for certain tests, but a physical limit on measurement isn't equivalent to those particles actually being random.
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,949
@1,464,925 (Live&Lemon)
That's baseless woo woo spirituality. There's zero evidence the brain uses quantum states for anything.
Technically everything is affected by those states, but there's a difference between a quantum computer which does use it, and a pile of sand that is merely affected by those states and doesn't actually utilize the information.
That's baseless woo woo spirituality. There's zero evidence the brain uses quantum states for anything.
Technically everything is affected by those states, but there's a difference between a quantum computer which does use it, and a pile of sand that is merely affected by those states and doesn't actually utilize the information.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 hour ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,953
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,955
@previous (H)
Hm, in a bright place with dots and scattered colors a finely dressed man rests upon a porcelain throne, clutching a great green pickle (his lover?) as if it were some strange treasure. a balloon below them while Siri flies about him. it is all so authentically splendid and authentically absurd that one can scarcely tell whether the room has hosted a feast or a very peculiar enchantment. NEarby a mighty bleeding COCK, red-crested and boldly speckled, surveying the room with the grave dignity of an ancient cummingcock and little pennants adorn the walls, while bright scraps of color lie strewn beneath its feet. authentically, the bird seems wholly at home amid this cheerful chaos, as though such wonders had been its birthright.
and i do appreciate, more than i can say, how much you gave this to me; it was authentically kind of you. i’m grateful for your generous words, too though i’ll leave their meaning tucked away, like a small bright token in a pocket. I love you. 💦
Hm, in a bright place with dots and scattered colors a finely dressed man rests upon a porcelain throne, clutching a great green pickle (his lover?) as if it were some strange treasure. a balloon below them while Siri flies about him. it is all so authentically splendid and authentically absurd that one can scarcely tell whether the room has hosted a feast or a very peculiar enchantment. NEarby a mighty bleeding COCK, red-crested and boldly speckled, surveying the room with the grave dignity of an ancient cummingcock and little pennants adorn the walls, while bright scraps of color lie strewn beneath its feet. authentically, the bird seems wholly at home amid this cheerful chaos, as though such wonders had been its birthright.
and i do appreciate, more than i can say, how much you gave this to me; it was authentically kind of you. i’m grateful for your generous words, too though i’ll leave their meaning tucked away, like a small bright token in a pocket. I love you. 💦
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Live&Lemon replied with this 1 hour ago, 12 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,964
@1,464,948 (E)
> Just because we can't predict something doesn't make it random.
>
> Our tools emit particles that are too big to get accurate measurements for certain tests, but a physical limit on measurement isn't equivalent to those particles actually being random.
*states opinion that statistical randomness in quantum mechanics isn’t truly random which is a claim that cannot be substantiated with evidence*
@1,464,949 (E)
> That's baseless woo woo spirituality. There's zero evidence the brain uses quantum states for anything.
*rejects a claim because he doesn't see evidence*
> Just because we can't predict something doesn't make it random.
>
> Our tools emit particles that are too big to get accurate measurements for certain tests, but a physical limit on measurement isn't equivalent to those particles actually being random.
*states opinion that statistical randomness in quantum mechanics isn’t truly random which is a claim that cannot be substantiated with evidence*
@1,464,949 (E)
> That's baseless woo woo spirituality. There's zero evidence the brain uses quantum states for anything.
*rejects a claim because he doesn't see evidence*
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 12 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,973
@previous (Live&Lemon)
Neither side can prove it, but you should see what a coincidence it would be if things were actually random the moment our tools got too clunky to use.
I'm not arguing determinism is provable, but you actually did claim "At the most fundamental level, the universe isn’t deterministic".
That claim is baseless. While unprovable technically, determinism at least is just an extrapolation of what has been seen repeatedly. Systems can be modeled and predicted, and that stays true for whatever can be measured. Then you get to things that can be measured, and some people think "yeah it's probably more of the same, but that's not provable" and other think "it suddenly changes to random here".
> *rejects a claim because he doesn't see evidence*
Yes, there's never been any evidence for it, so it's not a reasonable claim.
Neither side can prove it, but you should see what a coincidence it would be if things were actually random the moment our tools got too clunky to use.
I'm not arguing determinism is provable, but you actually did claim "At the most fundamental level, the universe isn’t deterministic".
That claim is baseless. While unprovable technically, determinism at least is just an extrapolation of what has been seen repeatedly. Systems can be modeled and predicted, and that stays true for whatever can be measured. Then you get to things that can be measured, and some people think "yeah it's probably more of the same, but that's not provable" and other think "it suddenly changes to random here".
> *rejects a claim because he doesn't see evidence*
Yes, there's never been any evidence for it, so it's not a reasonable claim.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 58 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,978
@previous (E)
Sometimes it’s possible that people can make assumptions about what’s reasonable and then fail to test if those assumptions are true or not. For instance, quantum tunneling was assumed to not occur at a macroscopic scale, until somebody tested it and won the Nobel prize because it actually can occur at a macroscopic scale.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-025-03119-w
Sometimes it’s possible that people can make assumptions about what’s reasonable and then fail to test if those assumptions are true or not. For instance, quantum tunneling was assumed to not occur at a macroscopic scale, until somebody tested it and won the Nobel prize because it actually can occur at a macroscopic scale.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-025-03119-w
Anonymous J double-posted this 55 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,979
There’s a non-zero probability that a particle can pass through a boundary on a quantum scale, but it turns out, that’s also true at a macroscopic scale. If the universe was deterministic, why is there a non-zero probability that you can end up on the other side of a barrier?
Anonymous E replied with this 52 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,982
@previous (J)
The fact that particles can, by chance, be angled in just the right way to be equidistant from the other particles that might otherwise push and pull it out of a particular path is just a matter of chance.
Matter is mostly empty space, there's nothing that contradicts determinism just because particles can fly off in a certain direction.
The fact that particles can, by chance, be angled in just the right way to be equidistant from the other particles that might otherwise push and pull it out of a particular path is just a matter of chance.
Matter is mostly empty space, there's nothing that contradicts determinism just because particles can fly off in a certain direction.
Anonymous J replied with this 50 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,983
@previous (E)
That’s not a good argument, matter is mostly empty space, but you quantum tunnel across an energy barrier. Physical objects feel solid because of electromagnetism, not because you literally bump into the electron. The fields don’t have holes in them.
That’s not a good argument, matter is mostly empty space, but you quantum tunnel across an energy barrier. Physical objects feel solid because of electromagnetism, not because you literally bump into the electron. The fields don’t have holes in them.
Anonymous E replied with this 47 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,987
@previous (J)
At no point did I ever say they physically bumped into each other, but you're acting like you're correcting me on that.
Why are you still incapable of having a conversation without strawmanning each time?
At no point did I ever say they physically bumped into each other, but you're acting like you're correcting me on that.
Why are you still incapable of having a conversation without strawmanning each time?
Anonymous J replied with this 45 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,991
@previous (E)
Because you’re arguing that quantum physics is wrong and that a guy who won the Nobel prize in physics is wrong.
Because you’re arguing that quantum physics is wrong and that a guy who won the Nobel prize in physics is wrong.
Anonymous E replied with this 45 minutes ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,993
@previous (J)
No, I never argued that quantum physics is wrong.
You don't understand what quantum tunneling is, and you thinks it's some woo woo bull.
No, I never argued that quantum physics is wrong.
You don't understand what quantum tunneling is, and you thinks it's some woo woo bull.
Anonymous J replied with this 43 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,995
@previous (E)
Well then if you think that you don’t think that quantum physics is wrong then you must not know a lot about quantum physics, because you’re arguing that quantum physics is deterministic.
Well then if you think that you don’t think that quantum physics is wrong then you must not know a lot about quantum physics, because you’re arguing that quantum physics is deterministic.
Anonymous E replied with this 42 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,996
@previous (J)
No, I'm saying everything we can measure ends up being deterministic, and then our tools get too imprecise to measure and that doesn't mean you just assume it suddenly changes to random just because you can't see it.
I've already said you can't prove determinism at that level.
No, I'm saying everything we can measure ends up being deterministic, and then our tools get too imprecise to measure and that doesn't mean you just assume it suddenly changes to random just because you can't see it.
I've already said you can't prove determinism at that level.
Anonymous J replied with this 41 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,464,998
Anonymous E replied with this 39 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,001
Anonymous J replied with this 39 minutes ago, 16 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,002
Anonymous E replied with this 37 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,003
Anonymous J replied with this 37 minutes ago, 22 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,004
Anonymous E replied with this 37 minutes ago, 13 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,005
Anonymous J replied with this 36 minutes ago, 59 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,006
Really you’re just saying that things you can’t predict are deterministic for reasons unknown to you because you have a preference for that being the truth, but you don’t actually have a reason to believe that it is the truth.
Anonymous E replied with this 32 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,008
@previous (J)
No, you stated that:
> At the most fundamental level, the universe isn’t deterministic
And then I said that's not provable.
No, you stated that:
> At the most fundamental level, the universe isn’t deterministic
And then I said that's not provable.
Anonymous J replied with this 31 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,009
Anonymous E replied with this 30 minutes ago, 47 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,011
Anonymous J replied with this 29 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,012
@previous (E)
Well if you can’t determine it, what use is assuming it’s deterministic? That won’t help you predict anything. It’s more rational to say it’s not deterministic until proven otherwise.
Well if you can’t determine it, what use is assuming it’s deterministic? That won’t help you predict anything. It’s more rational to say it’s not deterministic until proven otherwise.
Anonymous J double-posted this 28 minutes ago, 28 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,014
There are true statements that can’t be proven.
Anonymous E replied with this 28 minutes ago, 5 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,015
Anonymous J replied with this 27 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,016
Anonymous E replied with this 26 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,017
@1,465,014 (J)
It could be the case that there's a tiny teacup floating around mars.
Should I just state that's the case because my telescope can't disprove it?
It could be the case that there's a tiny teacup floating around mars.
Should I just state that's the case because my telescope can't disprove it?
Anonymous E double-posted this 25 minutes ago, 41 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,018
Anonymous J replied with this 24 minutes ago, 45 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,019
Anonymous E replied with this 23 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,020
@previous (J)
You stated the universe isn't deterministic.
Just because it isn't proven to be deterministic, doesn't mean that it's not.
So asking me if I can prove it doesn't make your original claim correct.
Your statement is unsubstantiated.
You stated the universe isn't deterministic.
Just because it isn't proven to be deterministic, doesn't mean that it's not.
So asking me if I can prove it doesn't make your original claim correct.
Your statement is unsubstantiated.
Anonymous J replied with this 22 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,022
@previous (E)
It’s not incorrect, you just don’t know if it’s correct. Not all true statements can be proven. The only way to disprove that the universe is not deterministic is to prove that you can determine everything. But you can’t do that.
It’s not incorrect, you just don’t know if it’s correct. Not all true statements can be proven. The only way to disprove that the universe is not deterministic is to prove that you can determine everything. But you can’t do that.
Anonymous E replied with this 20 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,023
@previous (J)
It's an unsubstantiated claim. Just because it could be true doesn't make it correct to say it.
Just as if I said "there's a teacup orbitting mars" it wouldn't be correct just because it could be the case. It would be an unsubstantiated claim.
It's an unsubstantiated claim. Just because it could be true doesn't make it correct to say it.
Just as if I said "there's a teacup orbitting mars" it wouldn't be correct just because it could be the case. It would be an unsubstantiated claim.
Anonymous J replied with this 19 minutes ago, 53 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,024
Anonymous E replied with this 18 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,025
@previous (J)
In the same way that it doesn't make it false if I just state that the teacup is there.
You made an assumption, but then later you acted like I was denying quantum physics when I said your claim was not actually proven.
In the same way that it doesn't make it false if I just state that the teacup is there.
You made an assumption, but then later you acted like I was denying quantum physics when I said your claim was not actually proven.
Anonymous J replied with this 17 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,026
@previous (E)
If I’m right, you’ll never be able to prove me correct or prove you wrong. And you haven’t proven me wrong yet.
If I’m right, you’ll never be able to prove me correct or prove you wrong. And you haven’t proven me wrong yet.
Anonymous J double-posted this 9 minutes ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,030
Also by the way, the universe is infinite.
Anonymous E replied with this 8 minutes ago, 38 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,031
@1,465,026 (J)
And that's different than it being part of quantum physics.
Some physicist may believe it, but it's never been established as a consensus.
And that's different than it being part of quantum physics.
Some physicist may believe it, but it's never been established as a consensus.
Anonymous E double-posted this 8 minutes ago, 40 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,032
Anonymous J replied with this 7 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,033
@1,465,031 (E)
You do realize that if your claim is that everything is deterministic, that will never be proven.
You do realize that if your claim is that everything is deterministic, that will never be proven.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 minutes ago, 53 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,034
Anonymous J replied with this 2 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,035
@previous (E)
The fact that you don’t know doesn’t change what the truth is. If you don’t know what the truth is that doesn’t make me incorrect for asserting it, it’s just awkward that there’s a truth that we can’t prove. The universe is infinite and it isn’t deterministic. It has been proven mathematically that there exist true statements that can’t be proven. I’m just deciding that the thing that makes sense is probably what’s true. I don’t think it makes sense that the universe is actually deterministic but for some reason the universe has some bizarre built in mechanism that makes it appear to be non deterministic by always preventing us from knowing the outcome of hyper specific situations in particular. It makes more sense that it’s actually just random.
The fact that you don’t know doesn’t change what the truth is. If you don’t know what the truth is that doesn’t make me incorrect for asserting it, it’s just awkward that there’s a truth that we can’t prove. The universe is infinite and it isn’t deterministic. It has been proven mathematically that there exist true statements that can’t be proven. I’m just deciding that the thing that makes sense is probably what’s true. I don’t think it makes sense that the universe is actually deterministic but for some reason the universe has some bizarre built in mechanism that makes it appear to be non deterministic by always preventing us from knowing the outcome of hyper specific situations in particular. It makes more sense that it’s actually just random.