I'm watching you. Keep your mouth shut.

Thanks for the info, "Congryshinal Justificationz" was enough - I found some bogus documents that use the word "likelihood", which decision theorists DO NOT USE to quantify the uncertainty associated with a "possibility". Also the set of possibilities, even just from the way the redections are structured are not mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, so it's a bullshit document. Tell someone in DC shoes that cares.

You'll find it on Brave if you type "congressional justification N++" (not C++, N++ is better language). *Compiler, not working, need technical support how do I fix a for loop inside a while loop using node.js. Please help my boss needs me to fix this broken website.*

They can reach out to the school of Management Science at Stanford to verify. It's best we don't talk further on here.

FYI, likelihood is the probability of observing some evidence conditioned on prior knowledge, it's like H(1/probability * experience) where H is the mutual information or conditional entropy, i.e., "information" (measured in nats - pronounced "nits" with a Yiddish accent).

The document wasn't written in April 2022 as it's made out to be by OD.NI, it was written by a hack pretending they used a formally qualified decision scientist.

The document was published February 3rd 2023 (2 weeks ago), so there's definitely something happening, and it's a bullshit COVED based justification of "inteliigent" *redickted*.

Can you contact Hoovy Tower to see if you can find out what's going on? I can give you the hotline number if you need it, you'll find my Signal details on my LinkedIn page, I can give you the hotline there. My phone isn't secure enough for me to be calling the queen in waiting's hotline, but I sense you might be in a position to.

If they ask who you are, just say that you have been given intelligent inspiration from someone that was briefed on the corpes mentes (pronounced in latinos) scenario, you're from Capitel Hyll and need to pass something on from someone that's in a long-term "across the bay from Cee Emm Yoo un U-AV" Experiment. Tell them I'm OK and I don't want to be identified so we don't break experimental protocols and un-blind the experiment they have put me into, as it's going to be very useful to analyse aposteriori to prevent it in future and that I'm coping OK with the very effective treatment regime they are administering me.

If N++ give you problems, contact me on that number and I'll sort them out with C++. Or just mention my name and they should go catatonic. If they are civil, tell them they need to ring me, we haven't spoken since 1995 and I have a software update for them.

Ask Hoovy Tower if they want a CYBEROPS team to defend the CHYPS ACT as well, there's a cultrue by industrialists this side of the planet of "start with a stolen product, then make it better". I can publish something that is thermo neckulear implant (not working warranty repair please) and will take the floor out of IC manufacturing, but Standford needs to be ready to a) buy all their assets as they go bust and b) stand up a new supply chain the moment I drop the mind grenade. Chip sales will tank for at least 2Q's, so tell Intel and AMD to budget for 6 and hold onto enough equity to ride out 8 Q's.

The mind grendate that will trigger the collapse in I-Cs is a market based intervention that will stop whats left of the demand side for server and desktop chips for all windows based computers for 18-24 months with a couple high profile social posts, they just need to be ready to redirect the supply chain as it collapses this side of the planet. I could also take out any BSD based demand side supply by publishing some more info, but I'd need to re-run the analysis first as it was done 10 years ago. Microseft sales in Windows 11 will take a 2-3 year hit from this, but they are big boys, they can handle it. Tell them its their tax for attacking NYSE:GOOG, and if they don't eat it we'll re-open the anti-trust case, as with the benefit of time, it appears that we were right about Netscrape crawler.

Thanks for your help. We're on the same side.

And be sure to wear white sorry about the typos / subtext.

Now choose - red pill or blue pill.

ap

Andrew Prendergazts
Australian Computer Scientist, Information Security Specialist, pop-up book Economist & Management Scientist
ACS | ACM | INFORMS | SIGGRAPH (Pioneer) | auDA | IEEE | Internet Society Member
MSc(CompSci), RMIT Universitoio | Cert. ASC, Standford Universitah | other (undisclosed)
Top secret ben king clearence, lest thou updated 2018+1.
.\p

I don't work with the government, I'm private sector / academic research based.

Thanks for the little bit of info, I did find some other kinetic defence budget requests under CJ on congress.gov which discusses classified matters at a very high level, so I can't imagine why intelligence would be any different.

The request to renew the NSA budget I'm assured is most definitely before Congress at the moment, it surprises me that budgetary and appropriations matters would be totally classified. I'm not a fan of governments making significant decisions behind closed doors, we went through a bout of it with our previous government and it wasn't our best moment.

Surely there is some material available? I would be gravely concerned about any firm of significance that cannot provide a budget or forecast to stakeholders. I was told "they are applying to have their budget renewed in full for at least another 3-5 years, including all the FISA warrant stuff".

In Australia all our budget spending at least at a high level is publicly available, and rightfully so. Australian's have this "we want to know how they're spending our money" ethos, and there would be outrage if these things were done in secrecy.

We also have a Senate Appropriations Committee which 100% transparent, you can look through all their deliberations on aph.gov.au in significant detail and watch the prtoceedings live on TV un-edited. The meetings/hearings are usually led by the opposition, so it's a disincentive for many things and is an important control in our system of democracy. It is however post-hoc.

That, compulsory voting and the operation of elections is a completely separate function of government that does not sit under any of the ministerial portfolios. I think America would benefit from something similar.

Is there anywhere else you can possibly think of that I can look? Where is this video archive?

Thanks for your advice WRT talking to the Australian Government, but Canberra (our version of Capitol Hill) is very difficult to navigate WRT cyber security, and our relationship with America on the topic is very much an asymmetric one, so I don't think they would have the information anyway.

Our SIGINT, CYBERINT, CYBER-DEFENCE and cyber-crisis management functions are all in the same department which sits under the defence force, which makes interfacing with the government very difficult.

I have given up trying to get anywhere with them on anything, as they are just not useful. They don't know whether to spy on someone or assist them, and I have had the weirdest of exchanges with them. I'm also very outspoken about calling people to task when I think things can be done better, so I'm not popular there at all.

Consensus in industry is that one tends to avoid them where they can till they sort themselves out, or they join the dark side and get paid by them.

I'm a net creator of IP and our federal clearances imply a transfer or exclusion of intellectual property use, so I won't ever sign one. I only get banking level clearances, which makes things fun.

I am very curious to see at least at a top level how the NSA is splitting up it's budget for several reasons:

CISA being split out from NSA I think was a good move by America, it would be nice if they gave the same advice to Australia, and I want to see if it's considered a success. If cyber-defence spending within NSA has transferred to CISA then that will say something.

There's supposed to be a big cyber-defence system NSA built, which my understanding is it should have come live around 2017, but nothing has been said of it since ~2015.

I'm very curious to know if there is anything cyber defence related in NSA's budget or if the entire function has been transferred to CISA and/or if their cyber defence project has been shutdown.

I'm working on a textbook about cyber security at the moment, but I've been asked to join in a couple nation scale cyber defence projects that are in the pipeline which I may consider working on next so this is very much my space.

Personally I think building an AI that helps people recover from cyber-trauma as PhD topic might be the best use of my time once this textbook is written, but that's still in the cyber defence bucket. I'm very curious to see where America is with defensive cyber strategies and spending, as the text I'm writing at the moment shows there is a philosophical and theoretical gap in the state of the art.

NSA is also the source of a number of problems (as with any organisation), I'd like to see if anyone has questioned them on their conduct which might go some way to correcting it, or if it's being allowed to continue.

Finally, there is the question of whether NSA has multiple revenue sources, which would go some way to answering a couple cyber-mysteries, such as whom is selling "commercial encryption boxes" to nation states.

Thus Australia and I are both significant stakeholder in these deliberations, both as an allied nation and as a member of the global village. We and I have a right to know what's going on, and so does the American people. The Tech industry as a whole also has a vested interest, which I am connected to.

If you could assist further that would be most appreciated.

Cheers!

.\p

Dear Mr Snoopy Snoop,

Please accept my apologies for the poor grammar, I am new to Reddit.

The Reddit editor isn't the best, I was half asleep when I wrote it and didn't cast an editing eye over the copy before posting. I have edited thusly, and removed the weird double-pasted bits that this editor seems to do from time to time.

Re: the other points you have raised -- your prying is noted, and your construction of premises and propositions from unrelated ground truths so as to weave implicit half-truths, just so you can have a jibe at an anonymous person under the guise of 'relevancy' did not go unnoticed. Is that what you want, acknowledgement that I noticed what you said? Well you now have it. Does that make you feel big?

It shouldn't, as it's a poor reflection of character.

If you are going to 'rag' on someone, be more direct. Hiding your true intentions through implication-al subtext is very weak, and I suspect your real intentions have more to do with you than with me.

I offer this as a piece of advice in the hope you might gain some personal development from it, and be less 'toxic' in future.

WRT the topic at hand, if you don't have anything useful to add, then please don't. And if you do, please stay on topic. We're all too busy for this nonsense.

I truly hope you find the happiness you are seeking, and via more constructive means.

Your current approach will never work for you, and perhaps try to not reveal how familiar you are with Zersetzung - most have no idea what it is, and it's not a good look that you so readily do.

Best Regards,

.\p