51–60 of 171 posts
> How to prove you know a secret without giving it away This is the best use case for blockchain. Put the secret on the blockchain and show others that transaction. Since it's on blockchain, no one can deny your claim about knowing the secret. This is why blockchain was invented. Before blockchain, I was miserable. There was no way for me to prove to my girlfriends that I knew a secret, without telling the secret. No…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC, Hillary was among a group claiming "stolen elections" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUqxX0YAafg and that her opponent was an illegitimate president... so, you know, it's not a unique claim. Also miss Abrams seems to make similar claims. These claims happen a bit in local elections.
No, you're just conflating things horribly. What Clinton (and I would bet most other folks that you're alluding to from the years prior) had meant by "stolen" elections or "illegitimate" president was emphatically not the same as Trump's wild allegations. She was not claiming "people cast fraudulent ballots" or "the votes were counted incorrectly" or the like. She was not denying what actually happened . Rather, she…
But you’re giving Clinton too much credit.
For one thing, neither Clinton nor Trump received over 50% if the popular vote. It’s tempting to think the Green and Libertarian voters wanted Clinton more than Trump - but third party voters have weird ideas.
Winning the presidency by getting the majority of the electoral college isn’t a steal.
If there were concerns about disenfranchised voters, maybe she would have a something.
But it was low turn out, plain and simple.
The election wasn’t stolen in any way shape or form. Nothing fishy happened. It wasn’t insanely close like in 2000.
She simply lost.
Not as bad as Trumps insanity. But not innocent either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC, Hillary was among a group claiming "stolen elections" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUqxX0YAafg and that her opponent was an illegitimate president... so, you know, it's not a unique claim. Also miss Abrams seems to make similar claims. These claims happen a bit in local elections.
On the one hand we have the Mueller report which finds that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election in the form of coordinated social media and other 'attacks' on the Clinton campaign. This seems to form some reasonable basis for making claims that the election was ‘stolen’ (informally, and clearly not a legal basis to overturn a result). On the other you have a narcissist who actually tried to overthrow…
...... share a hash?
I know a graph colouring, so I hash the {color, random salt} pair for every node. The other party chooses two connected nodes at random at asks me to reveal the {color, salt} pairs and checks if colors are different.
Scientists used to use anagrams to register scientific discoveries without revealing them. Hooke registered his law of elastic extension using the letters "ceiiinosssttuv”, which he later revealed to unscramble into "ut tensio, sic vis" ("as the tension, so the force"). People did try to brute-force the anagrams. On two occasions, Kepler unscrambled analgrams from Galileo into the statements that (i) Mars has two moo…
This reminds me of fixing a bug that causes your problem but then you discover the problem persists after the fix and that you actually had two independent bugs causing the same problem.
Regardless of how many bugs I have that cause the problem, a fix, in my opinion, is the sum of all those bugs going away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you're just conflating things horribly. What Clinton (and I would bet most other folks that you're alluding to from the years prior) had meant by "stolen" elections or "illegitimate" president was emphatically not the same as Trump's wild allegations. She was not claiming "people cast fraudulent ballots" or "the votes were counted incorrectly" or the like. She was not denying what actually happened . Rather, she…
I understand the big difference between Trumps delusions, and Clinton’s opinions. But you’re giving Clinton too much credit. For one thing, neither Clinton nor Trump received over 50% if the popular vote. It’s tempting to think the Green and Libertarian voters wanted Clinton more than Trump - but third party voters have weird ideas. Winning the presidency by getting the majority of the electoral college isn’t a steal…
If you "understand [as you admit; emphasis mine] the big difference" between what Trump and Clinton were referring to and merely intended to argue "Clinton is not innocent", then by all means, go ahead and say that directly, instead of casually leaving an incredibly misleading comment claiming Trump's allegations were "not a unique claim" because Clinton and others have been making "similar" claims. "Big difference" and "similar" are not only dissimilar, they're about as diametrically opposite as you can go.
Side topic, but why does something relatively respectable like Quanta Magazine need a reading progress bar? These odd decisions truly amaze me sometimes.
For decades, every long page had a progress bar. Then, nonsense design fads dictated that the scroll bar should become invisible on some browsers.