> As we are apparently electing malicious narcissists with dementia to our highest office, a more precipitous decline seems reasonable
To be fair, the current political dysfunction can probably largely be reduced by switching the electoral system from 'first past the post' + electoral college to something like ranked choice or proportional representation.
> In political science, Duverger's law holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the first-past-the-post voting system, as in, for example, the United States and United Kingdom, only two powerful political parties tend to control power.
> By contrast, in countries with proportional representation or two-round elections, such as France, Sweden, New Zealand or Spain, there is no two-party duopoly on power. There are usually more than two significant political parties.
and that way the presidential election does reflect "either the will of the Democratic Party elite or the will of the Republican Party elite" (ie, the extremes of the two main parties), but something closer to the will of the people.
For any given alphabet A, and for any positive integer n, the set of strings of length n over A is a finite set, with (number of characters in A)^n elements.
The set of all strings, of any length over A, is an infinite set, because it is the union of all sets of strings of length n for each positive integer n.
So if you don't know the length of the password, there are infinite possibilities. If you do know the length of the password, there are only finite possibilities.
Which would in turn imply that there is an infinite amount of information in knowing the length of a password - the complement of the set of n-length strings over A in the set of strings over A contains an infinite number of elements, which you can safely exclude now that you know the password is part of the finite set of n-length strings over A.
Only if the password is infinitely long. Which it isn't. The only way knowing the length shaves off a significant amount of time during bruteforcing is if the password is already so short that the time save isn't relevant in the first place.
Absolute nonsense. Apart from the fact that password length is necessarily finite due to memory and time constraints, passwords aren't stored as clear text. You will get hash collisions, because the number of unique hashes is very much finite.
Your argument therefore doesn't apply in this context.
It is also worth noting that in some cases, government and business owners have diametrically opposed interests - namely governments can nationalize companies (and if I'm not mistaken, some governments, like the Nazis, did, or would use the threat of nationalization to make business owners do their bidding with no regard for the interest of the business owner)
er... if you'll excuse me confirming the "HN is the 'well actually capital of the internet' stereotype"...
If you look throughout history, you'll see that before the advent of what we'd call 'modern states', most people who got their paycheck from 'taxpayers' did not see themselves as working for said 'taxpayers'.
Example: Pharaonic Egypt. Alexander's Empire, Bourbon France, Tsarist Russia, or more generally any kingdom, empire or any sort of duchy/earldom/county/etc where you have someone (the King, Tsar, Emperor, Duke, etc), whose job it is to lord over the peasants and take a cut of their work, not because they are an elected public servant doing the will of The People, but because they believe God Almighty has decreed that living off the wealth of others, and occasionally wasting large amounts of that wealth on building palaces or waging costly wars is what they were born to do.
as such, if you view the modern state as "basically an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy", then the police are not in fact working for 'Joe Taxpayer', but are just playing the same role that medival knights played for the Kings of France - they are the armed force of the extractive state, whose job it is to keep the peasants in line via violence so that they can continue to live off the fruits of peasant labor.
Not only did they invest, but if I'm not mistaken, at the time that was the biggest single check that Andreessen Horowitz had ever written. It's completely baffling to me.
I feel like part of the secret to being that type of CEO is that whatever your business is, you can spin it into something "oh my god, much wow".
Like it won't be just "vertically integrating pallet construction", it'll be "a heartwarming revolution in the construction of pallets, now with AI and blockchain".
Kind of like how TFA mentions that Milton's new SyberJet will "pioneer AI flight".
This could make a funny bit as well now that I think of it, advertise your new enterprise as an AI NFT Blockchain Distributed Pallet Revolution but under the hood it's just a sensible Harvard Business School rollup.
Exhibit A: Adam Neuman, who somehow convinced people that office rental + shitty app that didn't work was "The first physical social network" and therefore deserved a tech company valuation.
And to be clear he's not been convicted of fraud, he walked away from the cash bonfire with over a billion dollars.
not 100% true - I know some friends that would like a website, just they haven't found the means to get one. Even WordPress can be somewhat complicated to setup sometimes.
er... last time southerners with guns revolted, it didn't exactly end well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
reply