The entropy of some data is well-defined with respect to a model, but the model choice is free. I.e. different models will assign different entropy to the same data.
And how do we choose a model...? Well, formally by minimizing the information needed to describe both the model and data (the sum of model complexity and data entropy under the model) [1]
You might argue that's all too information-theoretic and in physics there simply is an objective count of the state-space, a maximum entropy, and so on. Alas, there is not even general consensus on whether there is a locally finite number of degrees of freedom.
But it is closer to absolute than you make it sound here. There are information theoretic models which are “universal” with respect to a class; that is, they are essentially as good as any in that class, for every individual case you apply - even if different cases are best described by distinct models from that class.
E.g. the KT estimator is, for each individual Bernoulli sequence, as good as the best Bernoulli model for that sequence with at most 1/2 but difference (independent of sequence length)
It is undecidable/uncomputable, and only well defined up to a constant, but you have a “universally universal” model - Kolmogorov complexity. In that sense, entropy IS an absolute.
The entire concept of causality and entropy as something that happens in a linear progression at approximately the same rate is 100% a concept that is "made up" insofar as it is, as Kant would put it, the process of apprehending a sequence of sensibilities into a schematized understanding of the objects around us. Cause and effect are real (and don't require empirical understanding), but only viewing objects in the space around us as partial impressions that are contingent on that specific time is the "man made" part of subjectivity.
So a better way to put it is that time is real, but only as it relates to our perception. And that is always subjectively contingent. The concept of "time" outside of any subjective perception doesn't really make sense. Even if you're purely limiting it to "causality", then you're going to run into a host of issues if you think you can order causal interactions into a linear "time"line.
For all we know, causality (or simply put - the past) is simply a feature of being, i.e. the product of now, as opposed to now being the product of causality. We think that we transition from now to a different now through causality, but maybe we transition through some other means and a continuous past is simply a byproduct.
I'd say causality and entropy are contingent on the (very compelling) assumption that time is real. We could be Boltzmann Brains, or something even weirder. Do I believe that the world is terribly different from what it appears to be? No, but ultimately our perceptions of the world are merely representation held in our minds.
Presumably the probability of a brain appearing as a disordered psychiatric monster is far higher than the probability of arriving as an Earth-normal tenured cosmologist.
Given that we fundamentally depend on our own, very human, sensory and cognitive apparatus to make any kind of judgement I have a hard time imagining a proof or even a convincing argument of this without falling back on “it’s obvious” (etc).
Yes, I am being obtuse. Sorry about that. Just for the record.
They should be miles away from production code, mission critical or otherwise. Unless they just love eating hard-to-reproduce bugs for breakfast. Do they teach mutexes and semaphores in university anymore?
However his comment assumes monetisation is selling the bug; (tptacek deeply understands the market for bugs). However I would have thought monetisation could be by scanning as many YouTube users as possible for their email addresses: and then selling that limited database to a threat actor. You'd start the scan with estimated high value anonymous users. Only Google can guess how many emails would have been captured before some telemetry kicked off a successful security audit. The value of that list could possibly well exceed $10000. Kinda depends on who is doxxed and who wants to pay for the dox.
It's hard to know what the reputational cost to Google would be for doxxing popular anonymous accounts. I'm guessing video is not so often anonymous so influencers are generally not unknown?
I'm guessing trying to blackmail Google wouldn't work (once you show Google an account that is doxxed, they would look at telemetry logs or perhaps increase telemetry). I wonder if you could introduce enough noise and time delay to avoid Google reverse-engineering the vulnerability? Or how long before a security audit of code would find the vulnerability?
Certainly I can see some governments paying good money to dox anonymous videos that those governments dislike. The Saudis have money! You could likely get different government security departments to bid against each other... Thousands seems doable per dox? The value would likely decrease as you dox more.
Recently I was reading about blind people’s experience of Netflix having been poor (no audio descriptions) for years and years and the media never picking it up despite organized groups begging them to do so…until Daredevil was released and outrageous headlines like “blind people can’t enjoy a show about a blind superhero” became possible.
And of course, Netflix released audio descriptions post haste once the headlines hit…turns out it was trivial all along.
The moral of the story is, if you want it in the press, make it outrageous first.
Yes, but it’s the same level of garbage as “Facebook was built in a week”, where the hidden part is “after The Harvard Connection spent two years iterating on the product and got everything stolen”.
Society and people in general don’t want to hear these “sour grape” gripes. Unless they are the ones affected adversely.
> Why are you on a thread about Google-style interviews?
For the same reason you wrote "Google-style". Because this thread is specifically about those interviews happening not at Google.
Oh, maybe you misunderstood their question. When they suggested Google wasn't relevant, they meant the company culture at Google itself because that's what you were talking about.
Perhaps. I'd even say it's part of what is taught as part of a PhD.
But if someone was ready for your exact question by having the right interview practice/experience, or they just don't care about your job so there's no stakes. Then you still aren't measuring what you think you are.
Look their product up, look at their story, and consider this joke:
"Do you want to be a millionaire? If so send me $10 and I'll send you the instructions."
Let me put it this way: if someone came to you and their story was that they could never figure out how to make money from investing and decided to make money from telling others how to invest instead, what would you think?
The glimmer of hope here is that they have customers, who will with any luck guide them to a real value.
I prefer to look at reality here instead of an analogy.
The reality is that I get on calls with customers almost every week who tell me how Buildpad has helped them shape and build their products. Many of them are very happy with the help they get. We have multiple founders who have built and launched their products with Buildpad, and we have founders who have started earning money from their products built with Buildpad.
I find that this is more important than the story leading up to the creation of Buildpad.
Now, you're free to be skeptical of our approach, but as I mentioned, my brother has previous experience building a successful business.
“Entire” concept is stretching it, causality and entropy are not man made.
If you want to look at ideas people made up that have way too much influence on our lives, you need look no further than your wallet.