How did the Privacy Project come to publish six thousand words of cyberdrivel from an NSA lawyer? How did an editor let through "cybermalevolence"? This whole piece is so stupid I am too distracted to make fun of all the tracking scripts embedded in it. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/opinion/nsa-privacy.html …
-
-
I apologize for yelling into the void about the hapless Privacy Project again, but this is the only way to reach the NYT's Quantum Public Editor, who exists in some branch of the timeline.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
imagine the pundit who, instead of presenting a reasoned argument from verifiable fact, encourages his audience to decide from ignorance
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
it's.. unlikely.. but we can't say for sure. Again:https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6141/amount-of-simple-operations-that-is-safely-out-of-reach-for-all-humanity …
-
It is a waste to actively move towards QC resistant primitives, in much the same way it would be to prepare for the fusion-powered future, or AI being more than a marketing term. Except that we don't even know if QC will ever be practical, unlike the other examples.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Fortunately for the Russians, you don't actually need magical quantum computers, because you can use fake Twitter accounts to get people to download animated cat picture meme generators and binary Bitcoin mining tools.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
By 2030 we will have quantum computers that can factor very large numbers, perhaps as large as 241 rendering 8 bit encryption completely useless.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.