If you want to best predict what state comes next from a space of possibilities, you have to figure out how probable each next state is and pick the most probable one.

If you want to compress something, you have to figure out how probable each next next state is and assign the smallest code to the most probable state.

These two processes are essentially the same, and the resulting structure of a system which regulates either process will be similar, approaching the same structure at high confidence.

Edit: Poor taste to edit out your original comment with no acknowledgement. That was inappropriate and you know it, which is why you've now changed your comment.

Your current negativity is not welcome, if you are an attorney then please conduct yourself with more professionalism. If you want to seek to understand, great, but now you are being aggressive and negative and making a host of unfounded assumptions.

Instead of positioning yourself adversarially and making unfounded and unwarranted claims about others, it would be more productive to engage in good faith and seek to lend a hand.

You've already made flat-out incorrect assumptions about me, indirect or not. Calibrate yourself.

Anyway, the nature of a slippery slope like this one is that the punishments will get worse over time as the government further vilifies those who push against things like this and encryption backdoors.

Have you been to prison? I've been incarcerated before already after having my rights violated. Let's not go there. Make less assumptions.

Any of our original forefathers would recognize today's American federal government as an overreach from their indended form of government.

The only reason we aren't seeing a Boston Tea Party 2.0 over the recent string of coordinated assaults against our inalienable human rights is because surveillance capitalism is already coarsely achieving its goals of suppressing any civic participation which exists between the spectrum of ineffective political protest to the most desperate, radical action.

Some of those among us simply cannot drink this koolaid. A quote from MLK, Jr:

  I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

China is an authoritarian government and its policies have no more bearing on what people settle for than the currently socially unacceptable regime in the US.

In my opinion, if one lacks the motivation or resolve to fight for these rights, they should do so quietly and not attempt to patronize others who still stand by these rights as not being "realistic".

I'm not sure what "Do you mean in absolute terms?" is asking, but I think it's generally wise to follow the Hacker News guidelines here:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith