upofadownNSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
D. J. Bernstein is very well respected and for very good reason. And I don't have firsthand knowledge of the background here, but the blog posts about the incident have been written in a kind of weird voice that make me feel like I'm reading about the US Government suppressing evidence of Bigfoot or something.
Stuff like this
> Wow, look at that: "due process".... Could it possibly be that the people writing the law were thinking through how standardization processes could be abused?"
is both accusing the other party of bad faith and also heavily using sarcasm, which is a sort of performative bad faith.
Sarcasm can be really effective when used well. But when a post is dripping with sarcasm and accusing others of bad faith it comes off as hiding a weak position behind contempt. I don't know if this is just how DJB writes, or if he's adopting this voice because he thinks it's what the internet wants to see right now.
Personally, I would prefer a style where he says only what he means without irony and expresses his feelings directly. If showing contempt is essential to the piece, then the Linus Torvalds style of explicit theatrical contempt is probably preferable, at least to me.
I understand others may feel differently. The style just gives me crackpot vibes and that may color reception of the blog posts to people who don't know DJT's reputation.
He’s smart and prolific, for sure, but I lost respect for him several years ago.
Why, if I might respectfully ask?
Sure! First, while I’m in no position to judge cryptographic algorithms, the success of cha-cha and 25519 speak for themselves. More prosaically, patriecia/critbit trees and his other tools are the right thing, and foresighted. He’s not just smart, but also prolific.
However, he’s left a wake of combative controversy his entire career, of the “crackpot” type the parent comment notes, and at some point it’d be worth his asking, AITA? Second, his unconditional support of Jacob Appelbaum has been bonkers. He’s obviously smart and uncompromising but, despite having been in the right on some issues, his scorched earth approach/lack of judgment seems to have turned his paranoia about everyone being out to get him into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I do not understand your last paragraph. :/
Thank you! I had no idea.
That article is pure horsecrap: https://eindhoven.cr.yp.to/false-statements-by-henry-de-vale...
Well that's sure an argument. You get that I'm not the one who accused him, right? What you think of me has literally nothing to do with the claims Henry de Valence made. My guess is that these two documents (or maybe just the one you posted) are literally the first time you ever heard that name. Am I right?
Very very incorrect.
EDIT: Adding more to my post here because it would be hypocritical for you to complain:
1. I feel like given how I can make accurate predictions about Henry’s sphere of influence, that might gain me a little credibility: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45495180
2. The reason I insulted you is because I know for a fact that when the mob came and demanded you shun and persecute someone, you caved.
de Valence accuses Bernstein of specific academic misconduct and you come back with this Encyclopedia Dramatica stuff? Why bother commenting at all?
I don't think "I insulted you because" is ever a good way to start an HN comment, for what it's worth, but thanks for laying your cards on the table.
Because Bernstein addresses this:
>>> There is a committee at TU/e charged by law with ensuring proper
grading, and I have recently learned that claims by Mr. de Valence
related to this topic have been formally investigated and rejected by
that committee. Now that Mr. de Valence has issued public accusations,
it would seem that a public resolution will be necessary, starting with
Mr. de Valence making clear what exactly his accusations are.
He also points out that de Valence is himself likely guilty of academic misconduct based on his own admissions.
We have two people making contradictory statements. The only ways to resolve it are facts (which were presumably reviewed by the committee) and credibility. You clearly think de Valence is more credible because he’s one of your feline friends, and because your other feline friends accused Appelbaum of sexual crimes, and you hate that Bernstein worked with Appelbaum because in your mind a sexual abuse accusation is as good as guilt of sexual abuse.
de Valence chose the same credibility-destroying path as Lovecruft, Honeywell, et al. did: make serious accusations in the public sphere instead of letting our public institutions charged with addressing these type of accusations do their job. Wise people realize that you can’t be criminally charged for publishing a smear campaign online, but you can be criminally charged for filing a police report, and evaluate accordingly.