I find it funny and sad that this is the sort of thing that people like to bring up as somehow bad and not the part where the Isrealites are admonished for not genociding the Cannanites hard enough.
Sort of, but the difference here is that it's really "blame the person who created the process, not the person following it". The people with the authority to alter faulty processes don't want to change it, even if it's clearly bad, because then they become "the person who created the process".
Assuming you're talking about stategic defeats, I'm pretty sure the Battle of Britain was earlier. Possibbly North Africa too, but that's more debatable.
Standards are great, in theory, but a standards group can easily be co-opted by throwing enough people and money at it. That's basically what happened with DRM.
> a standards group can easily be co-opted by throwing enough people and money at it.
The word 'easily' does a lot of work there. How easy? Many standards work well. The Internet, an incredibly successful engineering project, is built on standards.
Yes and no. Youtube's moat is it's content creators. A gready algorithm might make them more money in the short run, but it would destroy their moat, as content creators migrate to other platforms.
Isn't this what the NSA is for? Also, I think we have plenty of reason to believe they regularly try to penetrate powerful companies, they just don't necessarily tell us when they do.
I don't have citations on hand, but it's commonly held that NSA fixed the S-boxes in IBM's "Lucifer" cipher design for DES to improve its resistance to (then publicly-unknown) differential cryptanalysis.
Of course they also crippled the key length to 56 bits...
They absolutely have bugs up their sleeve, but if they tell the companies to allow them to fix them then they can't use the bugs for spying (or at least, not as effectively)
reply