VintageGenious @ VintageGenious @sh.itjust.works

Posts

7

Comments

253

Joined

1 yr. ago

Indeed x)

You can fork signal's protocol

Hopefully one day they'll all use Signal

Add smarttube

On point lmao

True, they should learn about suggested content bubble

Thanks

Unrealistic

Most of my knowledge including the field I study now, is due to having internet as a kid and its power to learn by yourself

You don't teach without experience

This one https://www.missingkids.org/content/dam/netsmartz/itc/downloadable/Peer%20Education%20Kit.pdf ?

Looks good, could be used in classrooms (I doubt they will here though since education is so much out of touch with reality)

Thank you !

Now I should add

• Learn to recognize malwares
• Learn to block disturbing people and to ignore haters

Can you explain what you meant by netiquette and do noy pay later?

Yeah really annoying. Was able to remove account after being forced to log in

Sure you can always infinitely define what is behind but I don't think it is relevant here or you couldn't do any moral logic.

The two axioms I assumed are A1 a proven fact and A2 the very defintion of having something to hide. It is enough for this specific problem.

I don't see how Gödel's theorems are useful since they say that a given system of actions is either incomplete or inconsistent. With these two axioms it's hardly inconsistent and we don't care about it being incomplete since we only have one theorem to prove

You're welcome :) to be honest it's my first for this as well 😂, but I do have experience with math.

The one thing that ticked me with your proof, was about your phrasing. You were trying to prove !(p=>q) i.e. p^!q by a counter example, but your wrote "suppose we have p^!q", which is already the thesis of the proof. So what you wrote is essentially "We will proof A is false. Suppose !A, then !A." which is not proving !A. What you should have done is to remove the "suppose" part and say if p=>q then if I nothing to hide I should not be concerned, but I can have nothing to hide and be concerned, which is a contradiction. Then your proof would be somewhat correct but my last two arguments still hold. The issue could be solved woth some modals or quantifiers to express the different people.

I do agree with you point and opinion, but that "logical proof" is one of the worst I've read.

The "Nothing to Hide" argument could be restated that way:

Axioms: A1: Surveillance reveals hidden things A2: If I have something to hide, I would be concerned if it's revealed

Propositions p: I have something to hide q: I should be concerned about surveillance

We deduce from the axioms that p => q : "if I have something to hide I must be concerned about surveillance".

The logical fallacy of the nothing to hide is to deduce !p => !q : "If I have nothing to hide I should not fear surveillance". Which is a case of Denying the antecedent fallacy.

Another fallacy of the argument is that they suppose !p is true, which is a debunked fact.

What was wrong with your proof was that you used another human to disprove a fact about the first one. The I may not be switchable because the other human may not have the same axioms. Moreover, you statement was about "should" but if someone doesn't do something they only should do, it's not a contradiction

😄

and dangerous

Because the protocol allows to decentralize each part, unlike fediverse

La matrice est universelle, elle est omniprésente, elle est avec nous ici en ce moment même, elle est le monde qu'on superpose à ton regard pour t'empêcher de voir la vérité.

Quelle vérité ? Le fait que tu es un esclave Néo. Le monde est une prison, sans espoir, ni saveur, ni odeur, une prison pour ton esprit.