That was in the good old days when you could always open the doors on both sides of the train. I believe you need serious commitment these days to pull that off.

You are laughing, but my class managed to do that on a school trip once 🥲

At least I can thank that guy for one revelation: this whole dog thing bothers me so much because it is fundamentally about consent.

I certainly appreciate the intent! But that assumes there is a universal way to communicate "leave me alone" to a dog... Making them ask for permission is not enough if there is no way to say no.

Context: Met two dogs in the forest. They walked up to me and stopped right in front of me, staring and sniffing the air. I am not very comfortable around dogs and complained to the owner after he had called them back. Who got annoyed because his dogs were trained to not go directly for people.

Are they only interested in physics faculty, or everyone else as well?

How do you dress up as spring?

Every time I see physical attacks on TEEs, I wish someone would put out a position paper on @hdevalence.bsky.social 's "guy with a glock" model
x.com/hdevalence/s...

I remember seeing that one! Any idea what happened?

What you don't need to check anymore is the proof itself. That's what computers are for 😎 (Once someone has told them how to check your proofs...)

Checking definitions is way easier than proving stuff! I promise!

TL;DR: Yes, formal verification is cool and everything, but cryptographers should still check each other's definitions 🤷 (And not only the ones in the paper. Also the ones in the actual code!)