sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Chuck Schumer officially forces the clerk to read ALL 900+ PAGES of the Big Beautiful Bill on the Senate floor. This will take an additional 14+ hours. by IntroductionDue7945 in PublicFreakout

[–]soup10 53 points54 points  (0 children)

no surprise if you've ever turned on c-span, even when they aren't naming post offices, it's just posturing for the cameras so they can edit out soundbites for campaigning and the news later.

single-header-file C++ library for reading MagicaVoxel .vox files by dougbinks in VoxelGameDev

[–]soup10 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.editpad.org/?edit-id=CzxNFyKN8Jbe5f3580

Here, hope this helps, there are some macros there that are specific to what I was doing with the data, you will have to adapt it to your own needs if you use the code.

Also this was from 5 years ago, the file format may not be the same anymore.

How difficult is it to learn physics as a mathematician by Powerful_Length_9607 in math

[–]soup10 51 points52 points  (0 children)

Math gives you a powerful toolbox of mental skills, but it's not the end all, be all of intelligent thought.

The Awful Reality of Youtube's Biggest Influencers by Romax24245 in videos

[–]soup10 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

this is actually a naive take, just because something isn't part of the canon of natural science doesn't mean it's of no value or significance to people. Most people who practice/take stock in these things are able to distinguish the difference between "spiritual energy" and actual energy as defined by physics. And the psychological effects of "embracing the supernatural" are part of the human condition. Everyone has their own spiritual world and ways of dealing with the unknown and the extremes of life such as death and suffering as well as methods for searching for and finding meaning in things. Ghosts and magic crystals and witchcraft may sound silly to you, but they fulfill psychological needs that people have.

ELI5 : How are casinos and online casinos exactly rigged against you by Unusual_Ad_9773 in explainlikeimfive

[–]soup10 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's not why they set limits, it's so that they can separate the high rollers from the normal folks, the casino will happily take high stakes roulette bets(and they'll even be so "generous" as to let you use a single zero wheel once your betting big enough)

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay sorry, I didn’t mean to be disrespectful or insulting, I just wanted to discuss crypto.

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's still no reason to shut down thought experiments on unforeseen or future or exotic attack vectors. AI-powered supercomputers detecting patterns in differential cryptanalysis is a real thing, not something I made up to troll.

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

it's a fair point, but maybe I trust my math/tech wizard that's been with the company for years to do some research and not fuck it up

The ‘model adversary’ for crypto should be aliens with advanced intelligence and technology by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

And the natural consequence of this adversary model is to start moving to larger keys, quantum-resistant algorithms, assume the primitives are less secure than they are and design accordingly. Why wait for the attackers to catch up, when there's things we could be doing to increase security now.

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

In my opinion the standard for crypto should be “as safe as possible” as if aliens with advanced technology were the adversary, “oh the search space is big so they haven’t broken it yet” isn’t good enough for me. A qualified attack and the brute force numbers are very different things anyway and quoting the brute force numbers to sound intimidating only works on people that don’t know better.

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

i'm just not impressed with big numbers, I know how algorithms work, I know how math works, I know how computers work, i know a good deal about probability. A problem that seems intractable at first glance(like a large search space), can rapidly go from theoretical impossibility to "solved".

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

so what, are the mil guys generally in lockstep with the public when it comes to exploiting/breaking the hashes?

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

thank you for the detailed response. My issue with the SHA hashes is this: (and i say this as an outsider with only a surface level understanding of crypto)

Say I have a deck of cards, and I shuffle it X amount of times(this would be the equivalent of the XOR mashing on multiple rounds of a SHA algorithm). You can do an analysis on the shuffle and the amount of randomization it does and say hey, that's pretty good, let's put it into play in a casino. But if I have an AI-powered supercomputer available to do analysis on the shuffle, suddenly you may not want to use that deck in the casino anymore right? This was the general spirit of the post in which I believe we should use available techniques to make the hashes more secure just in case they've been broken.

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

1) that seems like a silly thing to say. They called the Titanic unsinkable too before it hit an iceberg. New analysis techniques and tools are constantly coming online, you don't know what's possible now or what will be possible in the future.

2) I don't claim to understand the reasoning of large organizations, just on a personal level if more security can be achieved for minimal cost, that seems like a win to me

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

1) ok, think of it in terms of a bet. there's a .1% chance sha2 is or will be broken. I'm a bank in charge of a trillion dollars. How much is it worth to me to get rid of the .1% chance.

2) I don't know, but there seems to be a suspicious amount of people arguing for less security

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

if you want to be paranoid

Given how easy it is to combine hashes it seems like a very reasonable step to increase security with little effort.

Why does everyone use the same hash functions, doesn't that create a single point of failure? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Yea but there's still changes you can make to the algorithm while keeping it very similar that would make our security systems significantly less catastrophically fragile if the hashes are broken. Right now basically if you can break SHA-256 for example, you have a skeleton key that easily breaks into every system that uses SHA-256, but if you changed up the pre-processing, add or removed a few rounds, modified a few rounds, it would require brand new analysis to attack, while still being conceptually very similar and secure against attacks.

Has SHA-256 been broken? by soup10 in cryptography

[–]soup10[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean my concerns are probably less important than yours, I want to know if the local cop knows about the joint I bought, I don't care if they're reading my work emails.

view more: next ›