cads: I feel for what she says, and I think she's naive in only one thing

cads: mircea_popescu: hey, cute pic, if I cross my eyes I can almost see her in 3d :D

cads: "It wasn't rape. I'm a feminist"

cads: hey I'm a shy marginally autistic repressed twentysomething!

cads: I like some feminist stuff but I also like knockers

cads: mircea_popescu: I will remember that people can make you reject any economic theory simply by saying the word "feminism" 10 minutes before presenting it :D

cads: Suppose I have attempted to construct a system where my clients can pay well defined amounts of money to predictably add and remove beliefs from a group of people. It's worked - I've both started and ended revolutions, political movements, market crazes... in a number of countries.

cads: haha, and I'm basically arguing that we can make human attention fungible and this is a horror scenario because that means the marketing firms win.

cads: hehe, this is how mircea_popescu and I say "I love you"

cads: I want to talk about the econmics of how artists earn their sentiment, and we seem to feel that artists deserve only shitty sentiment because they're shysters that troll for a handout.

cads: I was being facetious.

cads: okay, so I understand, kabbalists and artists are our public enemy so lets not be impressed with them

cads: I think that's very cynical, and more of a moral issue.. do you think it's wrong or weak for someone to try to make a living as an artist?

cads: I can think of many artists that make livings working in larger studios

cads: I'm not going to argue what is art, I'm interested in how artists earn money, and I'm having a hard time believing that the amount of money that an artist earns does not _strongly_ correlate with the amount of attention that others give him.

cads: mircea_popescu: I'm merely saying one work has influenced far more human experience, thoughts, and ultimately economic action.

cads: in the landscape of the possible human experience time is the only scarce resource, so if in /this/ universe people have spent more time experiencing the first art work, then I am willing to say this is more "important"

cads: mircea_popescu: at some level I feel you are saying that it absolutely does not matter that people spent an estimated 34 million minutes looking at this single artist's work, if only because we can't trust those estimates at all.

cads: In the second and first cases I would point out that marketing companies trust view statistics.

cads: I'll leave it up to you to decide what type of logical fallacy you made by throwing Charlie Bit My Finger against the work of a singe avant garde fetish photographer. :D

cads: mircea_popescu: the idea is that an unpaid woman sits at a table and opens up a famous literary work she chose, begins to read a key passage, starts having and orgasm, continues trying to read, climaxes, and then closes the book and says "I'm ____ and this has been moby dick"

cads: I'm questioning the feminist merit if only because I still enjoyed the work with a very male gaze :D

cads: I liked stoya's own account

cads: I know bitcoin's scheme allows us to derive a public key from the private one, and that this is actually not typical.

cads: The only detail I am not sure is about the private -> public derivability of the keys.

cads: anyways - asciilifeform I understand that. Ie, say we have two functions F and G such that G(F(x)) = x and F(x) is in some sense independent of x. Then (F, G) is a basic kind of cryptosystem, where F is the encryption function and G is the decryption function. For us not to be able to derive F from G, G must be infeasible to invert. I believe F can be encryption with a public key (which in this case the designer will keep public),

cads: I felt a bit too vouyeristic while watching to watch all of them, but it was enjoyable

cads: I liked the essays too

cads: I thought it was really cute

cads: asciilifeform: I'm confused as to the sense in which the encryption algorithm cannot be derived from the encryption algorithm

cads: asciilifeform: in that case couldn't we say the same of hashing? Although I admit. Putting the decryptor somewhere in the main flow of the system has panache, and I wouldn't be surprised if a similar approach hashing is a lot less natural.

cads: right, I guess to jump from homomorphic encryption to obfuscated computation is a natural one.

cads: I came up with the idea of encrypted computing when I was thinking how to design an autonomous AI agent that cannot ever have its state vector interrogated or partially simulated.

cads: right, currently it's amazingly inefficient and not general, and I also believe there are unfortunate theoretical limits to the power of any such approach

cads: hmm, the verified software I've read about uses security properties which are proven via a formal proof assistant in a standard logic.

cads: But I'm optimistic since we can study the theory of what should constitute a correct and effective security property

cads: And I appreciate that this makes it /easier/ to avoid bugs - the only place a bug can now live is in the security properties you prove about your access model.

cads: I appreciate that we can create a kernel of security properties and then prove it about our access control model, and then build the system on that.

cads: asciilifeform: it's always been one great misgiving of mine whenever I read papers on large formally verified software projects

cads: I'd love to see a haskell or agda implementation