| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 55:29:44 |
| Calls: | 422 |
| Files: | 1,025 |
| Messages: | 90,708 |
Le 03-04-2025, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> a écrit :
It's even worse now, seriously worse. Means nobody
becomes "experts" in the usual sense of the word.
I don't know why it's like that in the entire world, but in France, the reason is obvious. The company refuse to take into account technical
skills. If you want to increase your salary, you have to switch to management. So, as nobody wants to become the most important guy in the company with the lowest salary, there is no more experts.
And most importantly, things evolved very fast, so if you become an
expert on something which disappear, you switch very fast from very
required guy to useless guy. So, before becoming an expert, you need to
be sure your skills will stay useful until you retire. Which is
difficult if you are young.
It's even worse now, seriously worse. Means nobody
becomes "experts" in the usual sense of the word.
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes:
Le 03-04-2025, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> a écrit :
It's even worse now, seriously worse. Means nobody
becomes "experts" in the usual sense of the word.
I don't know why it's like that in the entire world, but in France, the
reason is obvious. The company refuse to take into account technical
skills. If you want to increase your salary, you have to switch to
management. So, as nobody wants to become the most important guy in the
company with the lowest salary, there is no more experts.
I think the issue is general, and so are the exceptions to it. On the
one hand I’ve heard similar complaints about UK and US employers.
And most importantly, things evolved very fast, so if you become an
expert on something which disappear, you switch very fast from very
required guy to useless guy. So, before becoming an expert, you need to
be sure your skills will stay useful until you retire. Which is
difficult if you are young.
Specializing in the wrong thing is certainly a risk. For any given
technology it’s useful to be able to look past what its boosters (and detractors) say about it to whether it does anything useful in reality.
On 06 Apr 2025 08:59:33 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 05-04-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
No, but we can move to quantum computing, which may become
a reality before too long.
I heard about that before I was born.
In the US, the NIST is already researching algorithms for "post-quantum cryptography:"
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography
Quantum computing is definitely going to happen.
And most importantly, things evolved very fast, so if you become an
expert on something which disappear, you switch very fast from very
required guy to useless guy. So, before becoming an expert, you need to
be sure your skills will stay useful until you retire. Which is
difficult if you are young.
Le 06-04-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
On 06 Apr 2025 08:59:33 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 05-04-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
No, but we can move to quantum computing, which may become
a reality before too long.
I heard about that before I was born.
In the US, the NIST is already researching algorithms for "post-quantum
cryptography:"
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography
Yes, the algorithms are farther away from the computers. Doesn't that
ring a bell?
Quantum computing is definitely going to happen.
Yes, I know. Soon. Very soon. It's almost there. I heard that before I
was born.
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes:
Le 06-04-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
On 06 Apr 2025 08:59:33 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 05-04-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
No, but we can move to quantum computing, which may become
a reality before too long.
I heard about that before I was born.
In the US, the NIST is already researching algorithms for "post-quantum
cryptography:"
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography
Yes, the algorithms are farther away from the computers. Doesn't that
ring a bell?
Not quite sure what the argument is here,
but “already researching” is
severely behind the times. Multiple PQC algorithms are well past the
research stage, with finalized standards published in August and a
couple more on the way. Adaptation of higher-level standards (APIs, PKI,
etc) and adoption leading to deployment is well underway.
Quantum computing is definitely going to happen.
Yes, I know. Soon. Very soon. It's almost there. I heard that before I
was born.
I’m not sure anyone thinks quantum computing is “almost there” in the sense of e.g. a quantum computer big enough to break RSA existing this
year.
However the risk is real enough to be worth actively mitigating,
both because we may not know when the first one is deployed and due to
the “harvest now, decrypt later” strategy.
Le 06-04-2025, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> a écrit :
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes:
Le 06-04-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
On 06 Apr 2025 08:59:33 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 05-04-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
No, but we can move to quantum computing, which may become
a reality before too long.
I heard about that before I was born.
In the US, the NIST is already researching algorithms for "post-quantum >>>> cryptography:"
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography
Yes, the algorithms are farther away from the computers. Doesn't that
ring a bell?
Not quite sure what the argument is here,
I mean the algorithms are very well advanced. They just need a computer
to switch from ready to usable.
but “already researching” is severely behind the times. Multiple PQC
algorithms are well past the research stage, with finalized standards
published in August and a couple more on the way. Adaptation of
higher-level standards (APIs, PKI, etc) and adoption leading to
deployment is well underway.
Yep. The algorithms. For the big computers, it's another story.
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes:
Le 06-04-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
On 06 Apr 2025 08:59:33 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 05-04-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
No, but we can move to quantum computing, which may become
a reality before too long.
I heard about that before I was born.
In the US, the NIST is already researching algorithms for "post-quantum
cryptography:"
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography
Yes, the algorithms are farther away from the computers. Doesn't that
ring a bell?
Not quite sure what the argument is here, but “already researching” is severely behind the times. Multiple PQC algorithms are well past the
research stage, with finalized standards published in August and a
couple more on the way. Adaptation of higher-level standards (APIs, PKI,
etc) and adoption leading to deployment is well underway.
Quantum computing is definitely going to happen.
Yes, I know. Soon. Very soon. It's almost there. I heard that before I
was born.
I’m not sure anyone thinks quantum computing is “almost there” in the sense of e.g. a quantum computer big enough to break RSA existing this
year. However the risk is real enough to be worth actively mitigating,
both because we may not know when the first one is deployed and due to
the “harvest now, decrypt later” strategy.
Ummm ... given option ... I'd rewrite SSA/IRS using
one of the BSDs (maybe a commercial version) as the
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
Ummm ... given option ... I'd rewrite SSA/IRS using
one of the BSDs (maybe a commercial version) as the
The problem that will be encountered in "rewriting" SSA or IRS is not
the software.
The problem area is the 'rule book' defining what the software is to
do. The first problem is, there is no single "rule book" with which to refer. It is all spread over thousands of statutes that themselves
have been patched plural (millions?) of times throughout the years both
SSA and IRS have been around. If one could collect all the 'rules' of
what should happen given specific inputs together into a single 'rule
book' and print it out the result would likely be a 6 foot high stack
of double sided US letter sheets of paper.
And the rules will be things like (made up, but the actual rules are
just as arcane):
Person X receives 4.75% of their total SSA payments over their lifetime
as pension, unless they are also a veteran, in which case they receive
6.25%, but if they served in the Airborne rangers from 1975 to 1982
they get an additional 1.27%, however if they also worked for the NSA
from 1987 to 1993 they receive 1.87% less. However, for payments from
1957 to 1962, they receive a 3.2% bonus, but for payments made from
1967 to 1974 they take a 1.4% penalty. Further, if the payments were
for self employment income from 1975 to 1986 they get a 3.2% bonus.
Etc.
Think about the arcane tax rules for what numbers to put where on the
tax forms every year, the SSA rules are very much like the tax rules
(because both have been created, piecemeal, over the course of decades,
by different politicians getting patches to the statutes through
congress).
The problem that will be encountered is that the existing code base has
been built up over the decades in concert with the politicans making
changes, so both evolved in concert, and each change was incremental at
the time. But trying to rewrite it all from the ground up is going to quickly hit the quagmire of exponential complexity just to understand
all the rules about what to do when for some payment Y (or for some tax filing Z). The result will be something that either screws up royally
at every result, or simply omits 95+% of all the arcane, interdependent, things the congres folk have added to the statutes over the decades
(and someone loses their SS payment the statues say they should
receive).
A commercial Unix is the better OS base.
That's what Apple did, and what Big G should do.
On 07/04/2025 03:49, c186282 wrote:
A commercial Unix is the better OS base.
That's what Apple did, and what Big G should do.
IIRC Apple OS/X is based on Free BSD
On 4/7/25 6:56 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Evidence?
On 07/04/2025 03:49, c186282 wrote:
A commercial Unix is the better OS base.
That's what Apple did, and what Big G should do.
IIRC Apple OS/X is based on Free BSD
But a 'commercial' variant - kinda like RHEL is
a commercial Linux variant. Apple PAID for it.
Indeed ! However ... probably COULD be done, it's
a bunch of shifting values - input to some accts,
calx ops, shift to other accts ....... lots and
lots of rheostats ........