Re:No, Cellebrite Cannot “Break Signal Encryption”
by jancsika on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @06:35PM
(#25523539)
> With his friends, P(zambungar_correct | bilparyoti_wrong) = P(zambungar_correct|bilparyoti_unknown), truly a situation worthy of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Granted. But OP seems to be at the other extreme which is equally problematic:
> Everyone reads a book, everyone but me likes it.
That strongly implies a boolean value judgment to me.
Re:No, Cellebrite Cannot “Break Signal Encryption”
by Matticus_Rex on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @07:26PM
(#25523914)
Nah, he's right. I often just end up with "I found parts of this persuasive and appealing, but I can't trust it because those parts are things I don't know much about, and in the parts I do know a lot about, there were serious issues." It's not that I think I know the rest is bad, too; it's that I know I don't know.
Re:No, Cellebrite Cannot “Break Signal Encryption”
by renewiltord on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @06:53PM
(#25523672)
I think that's just a shortcoming of terse communication. I would wager he's not zeroing out the coefficients considering the context. Maybe $10 at 5:1 if there were a way to ensure fairness on the bet.
Re:No, Cellebrite Cannot “Break Signal Encryption”
by Matticus_Rex on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @04:01PM
(#25522185)
Thanks for putting waaay more effort into that response than I would have haha
Re:No, Cellebrite Cannot “Break Signal Encryption”
by renewiltord on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @04:06PM
(#25522233)
Most definitely a great deal of akrasia involved there on my part.
Imagine I give you a dictionary purporting to contain descriptions of the referents of the following words: (I assume you know what a sprint is, but not a bilparyoti or a zambungar)
* sprint - to run at a rapid pace for a short distance
* bilparyoti - a kind of bright blue butterfly, found in Congo-Brazzaville
* zambungar - a muddy colour, specifically that created when a landslide enters a clear river
Now, based on knowing that 'sprint' is 'correct', what is your probability, posterior to being supplied the dictionary, that you know what a 'bilparyoti' references?
Now, imagine that I tell you that the 'bilparyoti' is wrong and you are able to be convinced that the 'bilparyoti' is wrong. Is your prior for the accuracy of the 'zambungar' reference the same as the posterior after being supplied the information about the 'bilparyoti'?
Matticus, there, presumably laments the fact that the zambungar accuracy probability has not moved. Rationally it should move towards zero. By varying amounts, certainly, but towards zero. With his friends, P(zambungar_correct | bilparyoti_wrong) = P(zambungar_correct|bilparyoti_unknown), truly a situation worthy of wailing and gnashing of teeth.