Russian propaganda

ah yes it’s that notoriously pro-russia website hrw.org 😂

Can a country “choose” the ambassador of another country? That’s counterintuitive to me

Countries choose their own ambassador to another country. The nominee this article is about is from the US.

Separately however, countries can choose to accept or reject the ambassadors other countries send to them. It’s very uncommon to reject them, but actually South Africa’s ambassador to the US was expelled earlier this month. I wouldn’t be surprised if South Africa doesn’t accept Bozell.

The government revoked Tufts doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk’s visa due to her pro-Palestinian activism, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who added the State Department may have revoked more than 300 student visas since the beginning of the second Trump administration.

“It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa,” Rubio said during a press conference in Guyana on Thursday.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/tufts-students-visa-revoked-due-activism-rubio/story?id=120226954

usaid.gov is serving a redirect to www.usaid.gov which currently does not resolve.

You’re quoting something that says its from 2021, but OP’s image cites the 2013-2017 American Community Survey as its source.

Meanwhile, this interactive map (maybe from 2022?) indicates that only 0.29% (6,181 people) of New Mexico’s population were born in the Philippines, and 0.18% (3,753 people) were born in Germany.

mildly interesting, but i’m pretty sure the size of the largest groups (not to mention the gap between the largest and next largest) are highly variable and in some cases are not particularly large at all, so, mapping only the largest one is vastly oversimplifying things and producing a rather misleading picture. (the census bureau’s data on the subject is here in case any map enthusiasts want to make more informative maps…)

Yeah, I also used to run qmail and first knew of djb as the apparently only person capable of implementing network protocols in C without any exploitable bugs :)

But, he was actually doing historically important cryptography work even back then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States (and since has gone on to co-invent several cryptographic primitives which are now ubiquitous internet standards).

as the mod of this community i feel inclined to mention here that I posted a comment about this last month in another community, in reply to a previous post OP made about it: https://lemmy.ml/comment/12562836

See also Section 7.3 and Appendix C (and the BADA55 Crypto paper that the email in Appendix C refers to).

getting a fair trial

🤨 did you read any of the links in my last comment?

(are you suggesting you think that he could actually be extradited and found not guilty, or are you saying you think he deserves to go to prison and that is what you mean by saying he would be “better off” not fighting extradition?)

First amendment is given to us by our creators it says so in the us constution everyone gets it period

Neither the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of its other amendments use the word “creator”. You’re probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence (the famous second sentence of which is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”). The DoI predates the Constitution and its amendments by over a decade and has no force of law.

There is a strong legal argument to be made, including some historical court rulings, that at least some of the rights in the Bill of Rights do apply to non-citizens - although some of those arguments are limited to when non-citizens are on US soil (which Assange was not when he engaged in the acts of journalism which he is being prosecuted for).

However, one of the US prosecutors (Gordon Kromberg) specifically told the court in his declaration in support of the Assange extradition:

Concerning any First Amendment challenge, the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment […]

Former Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo also wrote in his memoir Never Give An Inch:

Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges. He is not a U.S. citizen.

Other US officials have made similar statements.

You can read more here:

• https://thedissenter.org/countdown-to-day-x-us-assange-no-first-amendment-rights/
• https://www.jurist.org/features/2023/08/21/law-professor-marjorie-cohn-extradition-of-julian-assange-threatens-first-amendment-and-freedom-of-press/

Last month, the British High Court gave the US prosecutors until April 16 to submit a declaration including assurances that “the applicant is permitted to rely on the first amendment” and that he “is afforded the same first amendment protections as a United States citizen” (those are the British court’s words).

The assurance the US has now submitted did not actually repudiate the prosecutors earlier explicit statement that the “the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment” but instead said merely that he can “seek to raise” the first amendment in his defense. But, he has already been seeking to raise the first amendment to stop his extradition, and these “assurances” that he can seek to raise it again in the US come from the same prosecutors who explicitly argued (and again, have not repudiated their argument) to the British court that he is not entitled to first amendment protection because he is a foreign national.

You didn’t answer my question: Better off than what?

He is better off in the USA he can clam first amendment rights freedom of the press

The US position is that the first amendment doesn’t apply to non-citizens, and also that it isn’t possible to make a public interest defense to espionage charges.

also he won’t get death the worst is 20 to life

The current set of charges carry up to 175 years and the US has thus far refused to guarantee to the British court that they won’t add more charges after they extradite him.

And even if he was “only” facing 20 to life, what would that be better than? He isn’t charged with anything anywhere else.

Gutmann is critiquing the fact that quantum computers don’t exist.

No, he is critiquing the fact that, despite a CRQC (cryptographically relevant quantum computer, eg, one large enough to attack currently-deployed cryptographic key sizes) having not been publicly claimed and probably not existing yet, people are spending a lot of effort designing and deploying new post-quantum cryptographic primitives based on the assumption that one probably will exist eventually and possibly soon.

If you think quantum computers don’t exist at all, what do you think the numerous customers of the companies listed here (who have been selling them for a while now) have been buying?

There is a relatively broad scientific consensus that a CRQC is likely to be achieved eventually. The belief that it must be impossible because it hasn’t been demonstrated yet is the baseless position.

Also, I suspect you’re not understanding the difference between quantum cryptography and post-quantum cryptography; they really have nothing to do with each other at all. Your post titles still say “quantum cryptography” which is a thing that Gutmann’s essay is not referring to in the slightest (and is a thing which doesn’t involve large quantum computers).

His peers overwhelmingly disagree with him.

And even if there aren’t CRQCs in our lifetime, the transition to hybrid PQC could end up being worthwhile anyway if there turn out to be some non-quantum advances against some of the classical primitives we’re relying on today.

Btw, you should change your post titles here and in the crosspost that you made of this in programmerhumor: what Gutmann is critiquing has nothing to do with quantum cryptography but rather post-quantum cryptography. (Most experts agree that the former is not particularly interesting today.)

I really hope he’s right and that there isn’t ever a cryptographically relevant quantum computer, but, with all due respect to Peter Gutmann (which is a lot, to be sure) there is a strong consensus that one eventually existing is likely enough that we should be prepared for it. Hilarious essay, though!

it actually had some issues: An Analysis of Signal’s PQXDH