Ok next time you should really not do the "lucky 10000" bit, it comes off as very condescending especially if the person you're talking to already knows the thing you're telling them.

Not sure what you think my "different premises" are? Also I obviously already know that Shor's algorithm solves the discrete log problem. I don't know why you phrased your comment assuming I'm an idiot.

Yeah and I agree that in principle we should be trying to move to cryptosystems which aren't known to be broken by quantum algorithms. I just don't think the argument in the article is sound. There are costs, including actual security risks, inherent to switching. To name a couple:

1. There will be implementation errors any time a new cryptosystem is implemented; this is practically inevitable especially if you are trying to rush the process through in 3 years.
2. Quantum-unbroken systems are slower and require bigger keys than elliptic curve systems. Users will be inconvenienced by the resulting performance hit, which will both impede adoption of cryptography in general, and tempt implementors into using incorrect parameters.

You have to actually weigh the benefits of resistance to quantum computers (which may or may not actually appear) against these costs (which certainly will). Paranoia isn't a threat model.

And to be clear cryptographers already know these things and if they still think we should all move to lattice cryptosystems despite the costs then that's totally fine. I just wish they would write their blog posts to reflect that instead of talking about the 1% thing.

I feel like the same "<1%" argument is used to justify a whole lot of things these days. Can you guarantee that there's a <1% chance that someone will come out next year with a paper showing that LWE can be broken efficiently with a quantum algorithm? What about a classical algorithm? I feel like a better argument is needed than just "well you can't be sure it won't happen" because we aren't sure about pretty much anything.

CS has a huge number of people who think you can derive the solutions to social problems from first principles. It's impossible to reason with them.

You're totally misunderstanding the context of that statement. The problem of classifying an image as a certain animal is related to the problem of generating a synthetic picture of a certain animal. But classifying an image of as a certain animal is totally unrelated to generating a natural-language description of "information about how to distinguish different species". In any case, we know empirically that these LLM-generated descriptions are highly unreliable.

Mr. Costantino said the design was not at fault and that the towering mast, which stood 237 feet tall, had not created “any kind of problem.”

“The ship was an unsinkable ship,” he said. “I say it, I repeat it.”

- Designer of sunken ship

a brave editor spreads the truth

uh, or not

value is when line go up

I don't want to come and help "balance out" someone who thinks that using they/them pronouns is worse than committing genocide.

Does anyone really think this, or are you just using hyperbole?

Not hyperbole. Hanania, Manifest promoted speaker, wrote "Why Do I Hate Pronouns More Than Genocide?" in May 2022.

I just can't, it's like that one scene from Austin Powers.

"[massive deficiency] isn't a flaw of the program because it's designed to have that deficiency"

it is a problem that it plagiarizes, how does saying "it's designed to plagiarize" help????

The normal way to reproduce information which can only be found in a specific source would be to cite that source when quoting or paraphrasing it.