robryk @robryk@qoto.org

Vibrating your head blurs your vision (try taking a metronome or substitute, striking it, and then touching your teeth with the stem while looking at something with a well defined edge or ridge: the picture will become slightly blurry).

I wonder what's the frequency dependence. I have two (nonlocking) forceps that, when measured with my phone's accelerometer, give similar amplitudes of ~50Hz+harmonics and resp. ~60Hz+harmonics. Maybe I'm placeboing myself, but it seems to me that the blur from 50Hz one is significantly larger.

How thick (perpendicularly to the surface) is a stroke of a nonerasable marker? Does it depend on its color? I assume it does depend on the surface -- I would expect it to have no thickness on paper but some thickness on e.g. metal.

@_dm

Or the company doesn't have a consistent long-term plan and this is a result of everyone being incentivized to punt every public-ish statement of that sort into the future?

@mcnado

Is there some markedly dominant way in which people shoot their own legs? (I wonder whether it usually happens when the gun is still in the holster and they're trying to grab it, or when they've just pulled it out and are bringing it to a more horizontal position, or in some other situation I'm not thinking of.)

@ErikvanStraten @sleevi

OK, so my argument is that you can get all the benefits you want already today. There is no need for any changes in TLS/CA infra/... The whole thing can be a totally separate system where you have e.g. a `.well-known` URL where you expect to find assertions about the domain owner made by various third parties (signed by those third parties, etc.). That is just as good, because these assertions have to be bound to a domain name only, not to a cert.

This is a setup that can be easily introduced incrementally, can be done browser-side in extensions, etc.

@ErikvanStraten @sleevi

I don't see how this addresses what I wrote.

Let's say you have a system where some additional useful information is attached to the cert, with verifiable provenance, and it's displayed to the user when they are visiting a site (so that they can determine whether they want to trust its contents/trust it with secrets).

That will be made equivalent to what I sketched (separate system for assertions about domain names) by semantics of same origin policies: if you determine that cert A for foo.com identifies an organisation you trust with some secret, then any holder of a cert B for foo.com will be able to impersonate you in front of the holder of A and thus likely get the secret you entrusted to the holder of A.

@lcamtuf @_dm

Do I assume correctly that "please stop killing civilians" would also get you nowhere without significant external changes of the kinds you describe?

(The reason I'm asking at all is that you originally explicitly referred to decision to wage war, so I suspected that you might have wanted to be very specific.)

@lcamtuf @_dm

Would you say the same about "killing" and "killing of civilians"?

@lcamtuf @_dm

The decisions to kill people uninvolved in attacking you (or decisions around tradeoffs between killing those involved and not killing those uninvolved) are separate from the decision to wage war. Do you think the same things apply to these decisions too (i.e. that without something novel these choices are a somewhat inevitable rut)?

@ErikvanStraten @sleevi

I don't think that would help (at least for https) in face of two different certs for the same domain and with different properties-intended-to-decide-on-trust, because same site policies would consider entities presenting those two certs to fully trust each other.

In face of that ISTM that you'd rather have any such properties tied to the domain name and not a cert (with an expiry, too). Doing that should be way simpler and can be done independently of the CA system we have now.

@grimalkina

An insidious variant is: how did we choose to observe at all?

@sleevi

This strongly resembles the attitude of presenting One More Policy And Its Enforcement as a solution to some problem without considering the question of the provenance of the policy and whether it can be assembled from individual fragments that single humans will have enough context to create.

It would be nice to have some way of succinctly talking about problems of these shapes (for starters, naming them).

Totally random: videos on https://www.youtube.com/@Shaddicus give a perspective on powerplant operations that's otherwise hard to get (for me they explained a few things that I found surprising in simulators).

@_thegeoff

I would rather suspect that such acceleration would come from the amount of entropy that was emitted when doing so (or rather, due to the net entropy increase). If the cooling mechanism was as efficient as possible, that amount would have been zero.

We could have emitted the same amount of entropy by generating the same amount of heat (well, slightly less) from zero entropy energy.

@kravietz

Zgadzam się z wszystkim poza argumentacją w drugim paragrafie. W wielu podobnych sytuacjach oburzanie się na zloczyńcow ma sens, bo są oni między nami i produkowanie powszechnego braku akceptacji dla akceptacji ich postępowania pomaga (np. w przypadku rabunków dziejących się w miejscu które "ma do tego predyspozycje"). Tutaj nie ma to sensu, bo społeczny brak akceptacji nic nie zmienia.

@aeva

I wrap my ponytail around my head and clip the end, which I haven't seen anyone mentioning (and it took me some time before I realized that it's an option easier than a bun).

I prevent myself from becoming lost in thought when showering by having a playlist of roughly correct duration, so that I can intuitively tell how much time I have "left" based on which song is playing.

@mark

If it's slow and still dangerous, it might be worse than fast danger (IOW threshold for dangerous might be higher for slow things).

@mark

I'm thinking of it as a notation that invokes a "method" on the commit with a potential argument.

@mark @b0rk

Potential mnemonic: x^N is the N-th parent of x (not N-th recursively, but N-th from the list of parents, 1-indexed). I would find it very weird if that was written N^x instead.