> editing it on a computer, and then "printing" it back out to a DNA molecule
That's kind of what Novavax claims, search for the interview with David Rubinstein on WEF. NVAX wants to print short fragments of virus's proteins, so the resulting vaccines supposed to be safer than those made by working with live viruses.
I use open source app Nebulo[1] which is a localhost pseudo-VPN which reroutes all DNS to any DoH/DoT you want. It also has a request log, I was (not very) surprised when it came my default file manager connects to facespace when I don't have any account there.
The bad news is, GPS still turns on on its own and camera seem to click sometimes </tinfoil>
Maybe because people understand that it's security model is flawed: the peers in the mesh treat all the other peers as not trusted, that's okay; but the network design doesn't seem to take into account potential hostility of the physical medium itself.
Say, your ISP can tarpit packets or shape traffic, or shut down the power or cell tower in your block temporarily, and then measure how the mesh congestion changed. At the same time the mesh relies on building hop chains with TTL of 10 minutes iirc, which I think makes a peer a sitting duck. It is (was) all documented/leaked.
The network security people I know stopped bothering publishing attacks on I2P's directory service--which was(/is) in fact subject to eclipse attacks--because I2P didn't seem to care to fix the issues. Here's a great paper.
Great... are the issues getting fixed? The point I was making about I2P working so poorly that some people have given up trying to help--in addition to specifically noting that eclipse attacks do, in fact, affect the design of I2P--doesn't seem affected by "there exists people who still spend time demonstrating I2P doesn't work well" ;P.
I doubt the number of nodes is important when you can split a large group of them into a few subgroups and analyze them or alter how they interact with each other, then repeat subdivision; because again, them overlay networks are like smaller sandboxes inside the big one.
Yes, overlay network's configuration will be somewhat different, but physically it will be the same. It's like you're rearranging apple bits in a pie to save them; the pie will be sliced and eaten anyways.
If they did, it'd be still complicated. A real example, a modder makes some content for an old abandoned game. He needs some voice over, so he contacts the original voice actors, but they deny to do that job on the grounds of being a member of org like this[1] which strictly prohibits to take side jobs.
And to make it even more complicated, consider tools like for making deep fakes; if somebody makes a neural network that emulates the original voice, should it be sub-licensed or copyrighted? Can a voice be copyrighted?
> people like me find it hard to quantify what that thing is
Privacy is [REDACTED]. Intelligence is not privacy.
Recently I cleaned some olde books I don't need anymore and there were a bunch of them on info security, so I skimmed them good bye, and they all stated the same vague definitions like no one knows what privacy is, there's no agreement, etc.
Actually there're definitions of privacy and intel, they are just sad and unethical, hush shush.
It seems like the context is built with a simple bag of words model. One day I searched "how to make a mousetrap", the following day I got a recommended video about statistics, where the author explains something on a mouse population, and says "mouse" many many times.
> that increased exposure to any porn has effects on attitude
What does your research say about the fixation of that attitude? Is it like, forever and ever? How those effects compare to watching martial arts, war footage from the news, movies etc?
Isn't it just a Pavlovian response training thing? Before the age of 25 people are more susceptible to learn or relearn, and some are just born (and exacerbated by insane upbringing instead of proper diagnosis and meds) with predilections.
> but the effects are more pronounced with violent porn
Sure, and if they had a fist fight behind a school, a kiss, a cigarette, a caffeinated drink and listened to violent music in a short time they'd probably had a heart attack.
Your conclusion reminds of witch-hunt-approving arguments like, violent games make kids violent. Which is moot, Take for example Children's Crusades[1] in 13 century, which was induced by religion and politics. Or, I know some parents who watched a documentary about how a talented musician was raised with beatings, so they took that literally, you know what I mean? Sick ideas find a fertile ground.
Btw did you watch that Black Mirror episode "Arkangel", seems related. Or The Alienist by Caleb Carr, the book and series, about underage male prostitution in 19 century, the plot is based on real life, sort of.
>Your conclusion reminds of witch-hunt-approving arguments like, violent games make kids violent. Which is moot, Take for example Children's Crusades[1] in 13 century, which was induced by religion and politics. Or, I know some parents who watched a documentary about how a talented musician was raised with beatings, so they took that literally, you know what I mean? Sick ideas find a fertile ground.
I can see and understand the concern, and some results can fuel moral panics and witchhunts, but they don't need to lead to there necessarily. Finding that porn has effects on attitude and aggression, and long-term, increased, or more violent use can have greater effects does not provide an ought from the is. It can provide some scientific and empirical basis for such an argument (for example, an argument to ban porn), but we shouldn't reject science because of the normative conclusions it might lead us to.
You may be interested in a book[0] from a little while ago which examines the debate quite closely, with lots of empirical data which supports both sides of the argument. From what I've read, behavioural scientists and policy-makers largely do not consider the evidence "against" porn to be all that decisive in supporting a ban.
In other words... the proper strategy should be to get the data, scrutinise the data, and then decide what action we will take (if any) based on the data. The book mentions a comparison with the effects of alcohol, which is quite apt. Many people who would argue for porn to be banned, I imagine, would not have the same opinion on alcohol, especially given the history of the Prohibition.
That's kind of what Novavax claims, search for the interview with David Rubinstein on WEF. NVAX wants to print short fragments of virus's proteins, so the resulting vaccines supposed to be safer than those made by working with live viruses.