cads: a man will rape a woman and then claim what happened could not have been rape. He's a feminist.

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

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

cads: yeah it became a thing

cads: not a surprise for a slave master to be the feminist of an internet bunch :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: 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: in the same sense that we must never expound the virtues of a song about selling crack

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'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: not a competition of provision of real valued, but a competition to earn human sentiment

cads: art works like a popularity contest

cads: so with multiple servers serving the same content it becomes a nontrivial task to syncronize the correct number, first

cads: Okay, so lets start at the bottom. The claim there are no youtube views. Youtube clearly provides analytics on the number of visitors to a page. So are we saying these numbers are fabricated by youtube or third part 'view providers? Or that youtube views don't actually record how much attention someone payed to a video, whether they really watched it, etc.

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: and in their essays it's clear they feel they are helping make sexuality a less dirty, less manipulated thing

cads: one of the women is a museum curator

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: "Hysterical Literature is a video art series by NYC-based photographer and filmmaker Clayton Cubitt. It explores feminism, mind/body dualism, distraction portraiture, and the contrast between culture and sexuality. (It's also just really fun to watch.) "

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: and G is decryption with the corresponding private key (which is included on the chip). It's a bit of an inversion of control of the intention of public key systems but it works for our purpose.

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: like, actual passages of cool literature like clockwork orange, sitting fully dressed at a table, while something undeniable is going on /under/ the table

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: ... assuming you have a scanning tunneling electron microscope lying around.

cads: there's a million ways to subvert either

cads: so joseki is a two part encryption decryption function E, D such that in some sense "the encryption algorithm is not the same as, and cannot be deduced from, the decryption algorithm."

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

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: It does feel like you're concentrating the bugs into a very rare and amazingly lucrative bug class

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.