log☇︎
92500+ entries in 0.057s
asciilifeform: cnomad: all of your subkeys seem to have expired
asciilifeform: cnomad: idea of contest, i found appealing because 1) inexpensive 2) simple , relatively, to administer, and does not require 'teams' of jobsworths.
trinque: as the case tends to be
asciilifeform: cnomad: i ain't about to sponsor a team of lunch eaters.
cnomad: anyway, just food for thought
mircea_popescu: anyway, ima be off to steaks. laters!
asciilifeform: yes, and there is not actually, afaik, any possibility of a solution to such a problem.
mircea_popescu: yes you pay 1k for the pop ; but the long graph of sub-1k effort adds up to maybe even multiples of 1k.
cnomad: you need to assemble a team of people and pay them according to a statement of work.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, understand the problem he describes. if arbitrarily prize is 1k, work required to pop is 1k, and 1k people participate, you are likely to pay about 0.5 per unit work.
cnomad: like if 2 ppl work on the chip, someone pops it first,
asciilifeform: cnomad: we ain't about to pay for 'tried'
cnomad: so, some advice, if you want -- competition format for long term research is not a great motivator, since it doesn't guarantee that someone will get paid for their time
asciilifeform: but possibly that one's nonrealtime
asciilifeform: he doesn't show up in the deedbot www yet
cnomad: is the competition you guys are referring to for popping that chip?
mircea_popescu: cnomad, having trouble with the dingbat ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, honestly, it was a pretty entertaining and informatrive discussion, by my lights. what mosfilm always wanted to make and never managed.
asciilifeform: but if one of the folx tuned in, knows how to make the binomial add up, plox to write in.
asciilifeform: if mircea_popescu doesn't see how the contest can be set up without creating a refereeing clusterfuck, or enriching alice_m, then i refuse to ask him to put any coin into any such thing.
mircea_popescu: phf, "bounty $100 paid for any information of whereabouts of dangerous criminal, except if he shoots the police and escapes"
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, notice how well arbitering works! i have no way to specify ~whether~ im actually paying a coin into this shipile or not. NOR DO I CARE. i'm just letting you arbiter.
asciilifeform: phf: no, again, 'bounty not accepted if he turns up alive within month of 'his' head being brought in'
mircea_popescu: i tell you i dun see this as it stands.
asciilifeform: but if it can't be done to mircea_popescu's satisfaction, i'd rather not do it at all.
asciilifeform: phf: right, hence the '2nd half' clause.
phf: asciilifeform: yes. a bounty is open to all comers, even the dude's brother.
mircea_popescu: and who thereby makes you an instrument of fucking up the market for people who genuinely put sweat in. and so on.
mircea_popescu: there's even a trilema about it.
mircea_popescu: it's entirely there, that's exactly how this "foss" shit works, by sexiness.
asciilifeform: phf: speaking of which, consider the easiest winner , if the anti-patch condition is absent -- a google shitmonkey who knows the hole already and 'wins' on the monday right prior to patch tuesday. ☟︎
asciilifeform: all in all, i'd rather not have the contest at all, than to chance to give coin to fucking alice_m to add coin cherry to the top of a google bounty cake.
asciilifeform: y'know, sorta like those italian all-plastic mines with three anti-handling detonators.
asciilifeform: on top of whatever massage already done ( and much as i hate to say it, it seems like a fairly high quality boobytrap )
asciilifeform: thing is more or less guaranteed to get some attention in enemy camp.
phf: also contest starts around the time that ascii publishes articles on subj, conceivable that someone else decides to look at the cr50, white hats a vulnerability to google.
mircea_popescu: what can i tell ya.
asciilifeform: because i trust heathens about as far as i can throw'em ?
asciilifeform: which is 1 reason why such contests are thin on the ground.
mircea_popescu: and if you want to be trusted, why aren't you trusting ?
asciilifeform: player only trusts us ( well, referee in person ) in so far as he trusts.
mircea_popescu: so then ?
asciilifeform: of course thought.
mircea_popescu: or you never even thought of this ?
asciilifeform: who even believes that coin can be had.
mircea_popescu: consider : i give you pill, you sell it to google, you tell me it's my fault.
asciilifeform: what exactly is wrong with 'if, for any reason whatsoever, pill doesn't work in fw released on aug 1, the 2nd half of prize will be returned to the pot contributors' ?
mircea_popescu: there's no such thing as chainsaws sold with elements of chance.
mircea_popescu: no, the objection is to the mix. if you want to specify, then you must specify. if you're going to "incluide an element of chance", then the specification pretense is spurious.
asciilifeform: (i.e. 'what if enemy , on own power, finds the hole within $period' )
asciilifeform: well as i understand it , mircea_popescu dun like one of the proposed goals because it includes an element of chance
mircea_popescu: i think the principal result of the discussion is, "can't have multi-pronged or articulated contests"
asciilifeform: thus far asciilifeform seems to be the only one among the thinking folx who thinks that this idea had any life in it. so i suppose i'll shelf it for nao..
asciilifeform: but if it dun get tried, than it won't have been tried. or sumthinglikethat.
mircea_popescu: this is starting to sound like addiction!
asciilifeform: i mean, already ~all i expect from $contest is a slightly taller than usual pile of 'you suxxx!!' mail
mircea_popescu: maybe ~THEY~ don't swing that way ?
asciilifeform: if iran can have 4hr marriages, why not this.
mircea_popescu: hence -- marriage. that prostitution contract whereby if the fuck doesn't take, worker's obliged to re-do.
asciilifeform: 'if they reappear in $period, obligated to rework for $0'
asciilifeform: actually plenty of biznis worx like this. i had a squirrel exterminator make precisely this guarantee, on paper.
mircea_popescu: "to prove it was not insult to god of the rain"
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: do they still have human referees at horse tracks ? i thought it was all laser nao..
mircea_popescu: the more i think about this, the more i want alf to be in charge of all sorts of things. imagine alf-run horsetrack.
asciilifeform: it isn't trivial. but i can only with difficulty picture a contest where it is easier than in this one.
mircea_popescu: this is a more difficult thing than you think.
asciilifeform: what i would like to avoid, however, is the fucking trannies.
asciilifeform: quite likely there will not.
asciilifeform: i dun think i actually disagree with mircea_popescu , re: whether there will be a winner.
mircea_popescu: i don't think money works like you think it does.
mircea_popescu: it may be the case, now and again, that your own fetishes aren't a worldwide concern.
mircea_popescu: "get third tit implants!! UGLY FUCKERS!!!"
asciilifeform: formulated simply as 'to get other half of prize, it will be the case that vendor update month from submission day, does not contain patch for hole'
asciilifeform: i dun see what's wrong with a 'pill WILL work month later, even if you have to go and hbomb google hq' clause. )
phf: gentleman's word, if only there was a mechanism to verify a gentleman's trustworthiness
mircea_popescu: well, scholarship only helps in the way it helps, what can i tell you.
mircea_popescu: a review of extant literaturer shows this is the only known-to-work example of a cut to your problem.
asciilifeform: i dun swing that way..
asciilifeform: however there MUST be some incentive not to go straight to enemy.
asciilifeform: phf: it is impossible to make the receipt of the 2nd half of prize fully in the hands of the player, this is entirely correct.
phf: outside of participants control to the game.
phf: i don't think "can still buy and diddle of amazon in a month" is adequate test for "didn't leak the patch to google". but i don't think there's a procedure to test the goal in general (see absence of evidence above). perhaps you could restate the goal, but then whatever restatement i'm not sure it will be under the control of the participant. in fact as mircea_popescu pointed out, a restatement of this particular goal simply introduces a random element
mircea_popescu: "what the fuck is your problem ?" "i just spent all day telling teenagers they're ugly because they don't have three tits".
mircea_popescu: consider this : i set up a tent at porcfest, advertising "mp slavegirl intake". and there is sure enough a lengthy line of bikini clad beauties before it. i also put slavegirl in tent, and instruct her to reject the ugly ones. ugliness is "mechanically testably alf 3.o" defined as "lacks third tit". end of day, my slavegirl's pretty downcast.
asciilifeform: ( if 'he made this bizarre algo and i cannot make heads or tails of it' is the obstacle )
asciilifeform: phf: if you still feel like refereeing, feel free to propose own set of procedure , to asciilifeform .
asciilifeform: imho i have described enough of a mechanical litmus, that a referee can stand on solid ground.
asciilifeform: hence the role of referee.
asciilifeform: but the problem of making it impossible ~mechanically~ is unsolvable in the general case. and cannot be done in any contest, this or other.
asciilifeform: if phf can think of a way to 'game' the 'exam', i'm all ears.
phf: mircea_popescu: _procedure_ is testable, but it doesn't necessarily verify the _goal_ (following my adhoc terminology above)
asciilifeform: pretty simple test.
mircea_popescu: "yes, 3=3, however that did not do anything".
asciilifeform: imho it is as testable as 'factor this key'
asciilifeform: phf: i'm still waiting to hear why the test algo i proposed, somehow resolves to 'untestable'
phf: goals and procedures inadvertently put the arbiter in the position of affirming that the goal has been or been not achieved but without following own procedures. in other words you want me to potentially call that the source has been leaked to google, but rely on a procedure that i can't possibly consider adequate for the verification.
phf: asciilifeform: my thinking is that your goals ("didn't leak to google") ought to be separate from the testing procedures ("can buy from amazon in a month"). some of your goals are potentially untestable and it's up to whoever's doing independent verification to come up with the procedure for testing, or dismiss the goal as untestable. then up to you to either find a different arbiter, or agree not to pursue one of the goals. i think that providing both
asciilifeform recently set up a (rx-only , for nao ) shortwave thing
mircea_popescu: "hands off my tube tv!!"
asciilifeform: ( it's a radio with air core transformer.. )