If consumers get value from roads they should pay. Consumer road damage is certainly measurable, since plenty of roads disallow heavy trucks.

It’s silly to claim because one can see a billboard that the billboard would subsidize the value a consumer derives from roads. Putting up a billboard didn’t cause consumer utility of having a road to become zero. And private property owners are generally free to put up plenty of things, billboards included, without this odd request they subsidize others that look onto their property.

And I don’t know many, if any, examples of people received as crackpots that later were considered genius. At worst genius takes a little time to be recognized, which is a situation far more common.

You claimed "No I'm not conflating them, I see the NYPD tags on the map flying directly over Brooklyn to their helicopter base 5+ times a day. [0]", as if this proved your point.

I posted a demonstrable source for those 5+ tags, which can be double checked by looking at NYPD flight logs. You realize there are public flight logs, right?

Now you'll tell us the secret magic helicopters are not logged and these tags are not from the drones, or yet another round of disprovable angry claims.

Instead of misunderstanding things, assuming it supports your preconceived beliefs, then making further unwarranted assumptions about others to reinforce your misguided world view, simply google to see if those tags are helicopters.

Don’t project your incorrect beliefs onto others.

[1] https://www.skydio.com/blog/faa-issues-revolutionary-approva...

John von Neumann generated a prodigious amount of math specifically to meet demand, on demand, under govt contracts, world changing things. Some of it was fundamental in getting computers into use.

Newton (and Leibniz) invented calculus to address current astronomical problems, a contemporary demand.

Fourier invented Fourier series to meet the demand of engineering heat flow.

Heisenberg, Dirac, Born, etc. invented the formalisms of quantum mechanics specifically to meet the demand of experimental methods.

Many of these were paid by contemporaneous need to solve significant commercial value problems.

Theres tons of counter examples to your claim. So much so it’s hard to believe you’d make such a claim.

Read my post above. It’s trivial to ask Google if these are the same, and they’re not.

A hash is as secure as the entropy used to make it. That entropy is the sum of the entropy sources, if they do not share information. If they do, and you can accurately model the partials, then you can compute how much entropy is in the result. Using the entropy from a pool reduces it, and over time the input sources are analyzed to know if there’s enough in the pool to perform a requested operation.

Has no one in this tread actually learned basic information theory at the level of Cover?

> This is superstitious nonsense….

You are confusing entropy with complexity. Simply google “ what is the difference between entropy and complexity in cryptography” and it clearly shows you’re confused.

Entropy is the unpredictability in a source of information. How hard it is to exhaust a space by attack is complexity. These are fundamentally different concepts in both information theory and cryptography.

So I wouldn’t claim this is a hard and fast rule. Lots of mcu lines have added mmus on some variants.

Secure is not a binary state; not understanding basic information theory and how entropy evolves is fatal.

This right here shows 100% why no one should trust you or your code. You have a seriously fundamental misunderstanding of entropy or what the Bernstein blog post (and it is a blog post, even if it’s Bernstein) states.

His post states, correctly, that a hash is as secure as its weakest entropy source. Adding more bad ones does not strengthen it. He doesn’t say you can ignore the entropy per source, and simply hope one “is secure,” whatever the heck that even means.

Entropy of a source is a number, often in units of bits/sec (or nats or Harley’s or some rate for differential entropy). It’s most definitely doesn’t even make sense to say “one is secure”. That’s a nonsensical phrase.

If you do not correctly know the entropy bit rate of all your inputs, and very importantly cross correlations, you cannot know if you have enough entropy accumulated for an operation, which is then used up; you cannot make downstream claims about security. That you’re so incredibly lax and naive and state the opposite of reality shows the lack of crypto skill. This type of misunderstanding is why there’s still groups hiring people like me to break systems: tons are implemented very poorly, leave holes from poor entropy, timing attacks, power attacks, glitch attacks, etc. depending on the system.

The very least anyone designing such things should know about information theory is a solid understanding of the book by Cover, then stack on top significant knowledge about the physical systems used under the software and have detailed models for them.

This is why people should be skeptical about this stack.

You’re correct about black and white thinking. Then you invoke multiple straw men in this thread to defend that you’ll roll your own.

Disclaimer: I’ve been hired for multiple DoD projects to break hardware and software security systems, and I nearly always succeed, because so many people (and companies) roll their own.

It’s also poor reasoning to you only pick one thing you think supports your view, and ignore vastly more things not supporting it, all from the same useful criteria.

Now if only you’d carefully read the report you chose, and spend equal time looking at ample presented evidence, you’d develop a more accurate understanding.

If you look over all such lawsuits, they extremely rarely succeed.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C23&q=llm...

And plenty of things, eventually solvable, can create major problems that could both be avoided and the problem solved by taking a much better path.

Having technology and the ability to safely and sanely use the technology needs to progress together at a similar rate. The failure to do this is even a reasonable and common solution to the Great Filter. Jared Diamonds book “Collapse” has ample examples of cultures that wiped themselves completely out via not having this balance, so it’s not simply a theory.

If you don’t see the first as a not honest, misleading restatement of the latter, then we think fundamentally differently about accurate statements.

Then, if you care to learn, there are extremely high quality, lkely far beyond old software like libjpeg-turbo, use in DoD projects, satellites, medical imaging systems, commercial cameras systems, and plenty of companies that sell such chips and IP to embed in ones own ASIC. There is zero technical problem taking an opensource project, turning that exact code into an ASIC or VHDL one can put into any ASIC, an so the best ideas are reused in hardware all the time.

Alma Technologies, CAST, intoPIX all sell such cores that are integrated throughout the industry, embedded everywhere, and can be bought with an ever improving host of features.