I’ll explain this one. We think we simply want freedom. But we don’t. Government reminds us that we don’t want true freedom for reasonable reasons. But they will abuse that power we give them. Media will do the work of the establishment by creating a narrative for their use. https://twitter.com/efjaebe/status/1180560898253053959 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Meanwhile there‘s math. Specifically number thy in the form of arithmetic-geometry which almost none of us know, protecting our love letters, finances, erotic photos, terrorists, weapon secrets. And we’re going to have to outlaw such abstractions to make sure Govt has backdoors.
3 replies 9 retweets 89 likesShow this thread -
So we‘ll have media create a crazy narrative that makes zero sense, to protect the coming program to outlaw truly private communication so that the government can listen in on true criminals as well as inconvenient intellectuals and political dissidents. As they have always done.
4 replies 9 retweets 120 likesShow this thread -
But Buzzfeed won’t know jack shit about elliptic curves. Nor will Vox. Nor will the NYT. So I made a joke about super abstract Topoi theory and “right adjoint functors” (related to ‘Category Theory’) as if they were related to the alt-right which is what media did to the IDW.
5 replies 7 retweets 110 likesShow this thread -
Most of that was clear from the tweet. I linked to the wiki entry for elliptic curve crypto for example. But Topoi and functors were things I used as *jargon* to make the point that generally our reporters are acting as activists who can’t often understand the stories they write.
8 replies 14 retweets 190 likesShow this thread -
This is why I don’t explain tweets. It takes too long and is like explaining a joke. The real point of the tweet? We are in a serious situation which should not be up to Zuckerberg and Barr. We need a lot more voices. Including mathematicians. And we the public need to get smart.
37 replies 33 retweets 370 likesShow this thread
If we really need the public to get smart, then it hardly matters what else we need, -- for that one requisite is already quite unattainable. The public will not "get smart." Expecting it to do so is rather like expecting it to hit upon the idea of an almost complex structure.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.