I am sure there are some cryptologists here, soo.. Nothing? Anyway, I know a bit about how RSA is inferior to eliptic-curve based schemes, and how security can be such a diverse and complicated topic than simple two-party communications.
What kind of grading do you give there? I guess the modal part is about the contexts for the type theory, but it has been some time I have looked into it.
I am a chicken, I could not make the switch for the home desktop and work computer, so I just downgraded to Windows 11. There are some financial apps that needs switching, damn.
Maybe I could convince people to let me use Linux at work..
Pushing for insecure post-quantum algorithms, that may be secure against quantum computers
Eh, I doubt that is how it works. We do not have quantum computers yet, so how we prove security in quantum settings is by specifying the adversary to have specified quantum capabilities, in addition to classical capabilities. Hence, broken under traditional attack means broken under quantum attack.
You can say that new post-quantum schemes are less verified compared to established classical schemes, but that does not mean classical is necessarily more secure.
This sounds more complicated than what I know about monads, but also I lost my ability to explain monads when I understood it, soo.. I guess this is the best we could afford.
Soo am I supposed to tolerate physicists casually integrating random shit like connections? And haphazardly normalizing integrals that does not converge? Damnit, you can't even give even loose sense of 'measure' to these spaces! How should I tolerate these as a mathematician?
I mean, it would help you understand what a ring is, if you know monoids. It clearly helps. Right? ..right?
I mean, that one is a tame example compared to e.g. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/homological+algebra