I think the argument is that we’re better off decentralizing opportunity than increasing density, considering long term sustainability (ie, we have a lot of room to decentralize) and human well-being (ie, mega-cities aren’t great — and get worse the higher density).
In my view it depend on two philosophical questions; does the journal exist when it rests in the safe, and does information exist when it is encrypted?
To simplify it, let's imagine a one time pad encryption. Does the information exist, or does it only exist in potentia? I think there is a good argument in favor of defining it only in terms of potential information as any one time pad can represent any information of the same length (or smaller if we accept padding).
With Schrödinger's cat experiment we could create a similar setup for the journal but it's questionable if we can still apply the perspective that the journal only exist in potentia. From the cat's perspective it knows if it exists or not. The encrypted information however has a more metaphysical environment and it is more questionable if it can be said to have a similar perspective.
We're talking about a 64-character password, not a one-time pad. Unlike a one-time pad, you can tell whether you've undone the encryption correctly. There is real information there that a third party can uncover given enough effort.
For simplicity sake we can see the password as representing a infinitive long stream for a one-time pad generator with the seed being the hash of the 64-character password.
The way programs detect if the encryption is successful is usually by looking at the first bits of information with the assumption that random collisions are unlikely to produce an expected pattern. Not all decryption systems does this however and some just give you the data as produced by the given key.
Both are however just technical details in how to turn the potentia of the random-like encryption data into information.
I'm not sure what you're trying to simplify here. If a third party can tell whether they've successfully guessed the right password, then the encrypted holds real information that the third party can learn with sufficient effort.
If it's just random bits that you need a one-time pad to decode, then there isn't any information without the decryption key.
If you're encrypting a hard drive, most encryption methods give you full certainty that you've correctly decrypted the text, in the same way that you'd have full certainty that you've correctly opened a safe and found the journal inside.
>If you're encrypting a hard drive, most encryption methods give you full certainty that you've correctly decrypted the text
I was thinking about mention it before when I wrote the above comment but it was already becoming a lengthy comment.
Truecrypt (now Veracrypt) is one of the more popular disk encryption software and was part of at least one US lawsuit in regard to revealing passwords. Truecrypt support a technique called hidden drives. The technique use the fact that free space is indistinguishable from encrypted data, so an attacker can never be fully certain if they have decrypted the whole data or just part of it.
A older and similar concept was/is utilized by Freenet project. Here the data get one-time pad encrypted using existing encrypted data blocks of same size. Each encrypted block then becomes both the key and data from the perspective of the encryption scheme, and the same block can be reused multiple times as one side of the operation for any given number of decrypted data. In order to decrypt a given file you need to first download the map that identify which blocks represent both sides of the one-time pad encryption, then the blocks which combined are twice the size of the decrypted data, and then do the operation. Freenet theorized that since any block could be the key/data for any other block you could never be certain of what information you have stored by looking at a single block. The block is just information in potentia.
Do you have any reason to think that what you're describing is what happened here? It seems unlikely to me, as it would mean that the guy could have given out a decryption key that would exonerate him.
This case has very little to do with the gliding scale between certainty and potentia. The legal system usually do not care about technicalities of technology but rather the interpretation of legal arguments. In here the Foregone Conclusion Doctrine is not about the existence of the data. The idea is that the government must already know a certain amount, and the dispute is over how much they know. In the case of the journal, some courts have find that the government need to know about the journal and that they contain authentic evidence in order to argue a forgone conclusion, while other courts think it is enough that the government know about the wall safe. Courts that demand that the government know about the content usually reject the case and the opposite for the later.
It is also important to understand that its not the journal itself that get subpoena. In the later case it is the wall case, with the government arguing that all locked wall cases must contain an unlocked wall case. The conclusion of the existence of an unlocked wall case is thus a forgone conclusion, with the content within being irrelevant to the argument.
The court in this case looked at this and said "The Commonwealth is seeking the password, not as an end, but as a pathway to the files being withheld". This basically mean that they don't accept the argument that the government can request the password based on the simple fact that an encrypted disk exist. Thus the focus is changed away from the container and onto the information within, and here the court do not think the government has enough information to prove a forgone conclusion.
I'm a bit confused about what you're saying here. We've already established that a court can't force you to provide the password to open a wall case. Why does it matter whether they know about the container or the contents?
There is nothing that is similar. The journal is a physical thing you can lay your hands on and the password exists only in the individuals mind. The act of producing it is both inherently testimonial and testimony to ownership of the contents of the data on the machine which is distinct from ownership of the machine.
It is further impossible to distinguish between won't and can't unlock.
Even if believed that you can subpoena the content of your skull you arrive at a situation where every criminal "can't remember"
Giving out the code to a wall safe demonstrates my ownership of the safe contents in exactly the same way that giving out the password to a computer demonstrates my ownership of the contents of the computer.
The point of bringing up wall safes is that it courts have already ruled that it's unconstitutional to require someone to give up a wall safe combination.
In my view, it’s analogous to a journal that will only exist once you have written (some of) it down in front of them. The encrypted content can only exist in decrypted form with the information in your head.
They do, because of market size effects and standardization.
Automakers, textbook writers, etc cater to the largest state they serve (or the lowest common of several large markets), then distribute the same version to multiple locations.
In the case of cars, which have to adhere to California regulations to be sold in California, that can drive up the price in other markets due to expensive parts required for compliance and auto-manufacturers standardizing.
It’s also more constructive to explain why people are wrong (eg, why you think car regulations one place can’t impact the price in others) than just call them stupid.
California isn’t doing anything to anyone else. The sellers are making choices, and the market is doing what it does and allocating resources accordingly.
You don't think that getting more attention, help, and outright handouts isn't its own form of bullying? You don't think it hints at an ever-more underlying reason behind the attention, help, and handouts?
You don't see an issue with being unable to have your in-game relationships progress past "you're a woman and that's the only thing we care about you"?
> And in a way it exploits these people even if it’s their choice.
How, exactly?
Your position is that they’d be better off with a different job, but presumably we’re talking about adults there by choice.
How is voluntary prostitution more exploitative than, say, a construction worker? ...or even third shift at a grocery store?
I mean, if your point is Marxist all labor for pay is “exploitation”, okay — but otherwise, I don’t see how adults choosing a profession exploits them.
This argument tends to come from the exact opposite viewpoint of Marxists. Part of the issue is that prostitution is often "in your face exploitative" (I'm not suggesting it always is), and because it often is, a lot of people are very insistent on making it into a moral issue where it can't be anything but exploitative, because the alternative if you allow yourself to accept prostitution as "just another profession" among many that can also be dangerous, exploitative, uncomfortable, and so on, is to accept that "normal" occupations can also be exploitative, and that's surprisingly hard to swallow for a lot of people even if you don't go anywhere near all the way to a Marxist "all labor is exploitation" line.
Code review is more about determining if you have the correct test cases to cover the algorithm, and a solid architecture for maintenance, than it is about algorithmic correctness.
Code review is a tool to push back on your manager ignoring testing: “Steve requested I add X tests.”
This is made worse by the mobile experience of having every part of the page be some kind of button.
80% of my clicks are my palm grazing the edge as I hold it or trying to scroll and accidentally clicking on some block element link that doesn’t stand out as a button.
