Then I would steer away from arguments which are more debatable and stick to ones that are more robust and focus on the present and future than the past, and avoid anything that can get mired in debate. I’d focus on what the specific problem is (we will have fewer artists due to competition with AI) why it’s a problem (cultural stagnation, lack of new inspiration for new ideas) and why alternative solutions to regulation wouldn’t work (would socializing artistic fields work as they’d no longer be subject to market forces).

Cloudflare Zero Trust is also great for that (and free for less than 50 users)

I’ve heard the sentiment that change and convenience are killing society before, and I’m sure I’ll hear it again. I prefer to shop online. I get no sense of community from stores where every interaction has a hanging financial incentive around it, I get it from local organized runs, other frequent visitors of the dog park, etc. To me, that line of reasoning feels almost like lamenting how good the pipes in your house are, because you don’t need to call a plumber and get to interact with them.

Shopping online gives me more options, more reviews, easier ways to look up additional technical details without feeling weird taking space in an aisle while researching on my phone. It’s also more efficient in terms of total driving; one person making deliveries for everyone in a neighborhood requires less total driving than all those people making individual trips to a store. And it frees up more time for me to do things I actually want with the people I enjoy.

Half the time? Either something is wrong with that store or you need to learn how to use it properly. I have issues maybe once a year.

Somewhat ironically, I think that only started after onlyfans became defacto about adult content. I vaguely recall a brief period where they had to take down all adult content since they were liable if there were anyone underage

I was confused at first, I thought it was trying to say whether the driver defaults to the Nvidia proprietary, and I thought that was already the case

I’m just going to throw out that if your understanding of US prom is based off of movies and videos people make to try and get views, that doesn’t match reality. For mine, it was fun to dress up and dance, but I knew plenty of people who didn’t go, and plenty who went without dates. And there was no prom queen or king or anything.

Steam Deck

These commercials https://youtu.be/qfv6Ah_MVJU?si=7uaDPCCRXXJ50_ES

I didn’t think Father’s Day gifts were that much of a standard thing. Most I’ve ever done is a text and maybe taking him to dinner or golfing.

So a “happy father’s day” card if you need to get something

I’d recommend doing some CTFs and reading some write-ups on previous ones, https://ctftime.org/event/list/upcoming has a good listing of upcoming ones. It probably wouldn’t go on your resume, except maybe filler at the bottom, but can be a great thing to talk about in interviews.

Nice try, agent

I think that would work, and that’s essentially what I was trying to say when I’d said

What you would want instead is for everyone to post a (salted) hash, and after the hashes are posted, reveal what the original numbers were and then publicly add them. Everyone could verify everyone else’s numbers against those hashes.

comment, as well as my other https://beehaw.org/comment/3531769

How do you do fair random pairing, though? If you are able to safely do that randomly, you might as well use that same method to do the random flip.

Edit: And even ignoring collusion, there’s still the issue of lying (or lying about lying). Only one of a pair would need to be a cheater for the system to fail, if the rest of the group is unable to determine which is the cheater.

I think you run into other issues, depending on OP’s meaning of “untrusted.” If people are paired off, whoever is in the last group to report can control the outcome. Either if there is a risk of collusion within the group or if one member doesn’t like what the outcome is going to be they can claim whichever of them is reporting the group outcome is lying, or the person reporting actuality could lie.

I think this vulnerability will come up most of the time when information is shared with only part of the group and not the entire group.

The last person would still decide the outcome. They could keep choosing values for whatever function until it produces their desired result and then post that.

What you would want instead is for everyone to post a (salted) hash, and after the hashes are posted, reveal what the original numbers were and then publicly add them. Everyone could verify everyone else’s numbers against those hashes.

I would go further to say that if “making someone do something” is the definition, literally any action taken by any government is authoritarian. If a government did not make people do things, it would functionally cease to be.

Specifically one of the imperfections is that the server and players are not trusted. If a player doesn’t like the result, they could claim the server lied about what number they had picked, or the server could actually lie. The remaining players wouldn’t know which one is telling the truth.

I think the responses with an encrypted/committed guess being made public, a public result, and then a reveal of the key, have it right for the scenario of people making guesses as to the result of a flip.

Re-reading your question, though, refers more to there being an agreed result for a group of people as opposed to checking a guess. I think this would require a bit of a variation. The trivial method would be to use the previous method and assign “correct guess” to heads and “incorrect guess” as tails, but this only works if you don’t believe that any two members are colluding with each other.

Another solution would be to have each member generate a random number and encrypt it, and post the encrypted value. After all have been posted, everyone posts the key to decrypt their number, and adds up all the numbers together and takes the sum modulo the number of options (2 in the case of a coin) and matches it with a predetermined mapping. For instance, if 1 is heads and 0 is tails, and the sum of the numbers is 63752, 63752 % 2 = 0 which is tails.

There are a couple gotchas to prevent errors. There has to be an agreed upon maximum number which is one less than a multiple of the number of options. For instance, if random numbers are allowed from 0 to 2 inclusively, there is a bias towards tails (0 % 2 == 0, 1 %2 == 1, 2 % 2 == 0). The other is the encryption algorithm would need to be chosen such that multiple keys can’t easily be created to provide different valid decrypts. This would also likely require some padding to the clear text, which could be achieved by some member of the group posting some arbitrary text first, and then all members appending that text to their number before encrypting it.

Yeah, I feel like the article would be more persuasive if they gave any examples of what research they are doing which requires these specific old games.