Using RSA as an example, the prime factors are supposed to have the same bit length (plus or minus 1 for carryover) for a similar reason. If the smaller factor has 1 fewer bit than the larger factor, it will be discovered twice as quickly by brute force, and 4x faster if it has 2 fewer bits, 8x faster if it has 3 fewer bits, etc. You could technically create a 4096 bit RSA key where one of the factors is 3 and the other is some other giant prime, but it would be immediately discovered by a naive brute force attack.
The algorithm itself isn't concerned with the bit-length difference and operates on the inputs opaquely. The key generator is responsible for selecting prime factors that cannot be easily derived from the algorithm's output.
It happens as soon as the fourth sentence (maybe even the third):
> There was a silence at the table—not confusion, but recognition.
Then keeps happening again and again and again to the point where it would be obnoxious even if a human wrote it.
It's unbelievable to me that there's a kind of person who would publish an article about learning that is so obviously AI generated, and from a professor nonetheless. Maybe this is some sort of experiment or an ironic joke that went over my head.
These sorts of tests are invaluable for things like ensuring adherence to specifications such as OAuth2 flows. A high-level test that literally describes each step of a flow will swiftly catch odd changes in behavior such as a request firing twice in a row or a well-defined payload becoming malformed. Say a token validator starts misbehaving and causes a refresh to occur with each request (thus introducing latency and making the IdP angry). That change in behavior would be invisible to users, but a test that verified each step in an expected order would catch it right away, and should require little maintenance unless the spec itself changes.
Georgia Tech has a great online MSc CS program (OMSCS) that's very affordable for what it is, though the amount of direct interaction with the professor varies from class to class.
The post title is misleading and the content reads more like a guerilla advertisement for claude. TL;DR: author works for Anthropic, and used claude to implement an optimization for LLVM.
He’s also well respected in the Python community for maintaining the cryptography package, partially written in Rust. This is just a random blog post, not an ad.
The author has added a note in the beginning of the post now making it clear that he works for Anthropic, which may explain the fixation on Claude Code!
And the top 1000 replies for any stupid thing he says are nothing but positive reinforcement from boosted blue check bot accounts that bury any actual criticism.
If you hide the boosted replies, you find Twitter's thread loading stopping after about 200 while it's trying to fill the space you made, so you're lucky to get more than a few non-boosted replies under one of his "popular" Tweets, they're bidding for a very limited space under there.
Wow, if I needed any more proof Google is a ghost ship then this is it. The $5K bounty is an insult, and the fact that they low-balled it in the first place makes them look like absolute clowns. Good on you for calling out how little of a shit Google gives about actually protecting user data.
Nobody is forced to participate in a bug bounty. If you don't like the rewards, don't do it. There's a limit to the financial viability of these programs.
Who's talking about participation? We can be appalled by their business practices as their customers (actual or potential). These are the same companies that tell us that our privacy and security is their #1 concern, and use that justification to take away our rights "for our own good", but when there's a real threat they address it with with a business-casual equivalent of "fuck off".
reply