[Florin_Andrei]

Sometimes it feels as if computer engineers have a unique inability to deal with ambiguous information.

Yes, I agree the article is vague, and I'd like to learn more. But this is typical for this kind of backchannel intel. From some sources, through some channels, for some kinds of info - this is all you get. This is business as usual.

Take it in for what it's worth. It's a signal from a sea of noise, nothing more. Maybe it's actionable, but perhaps it's not. Just learn to deal with ambiguity; the world at large is quite different from the rigid boolean-logic computer systems you're interacting with on a daily basis.

[TeMPOraL]

> Just learn to deal with ambiguity; the world at large is quite different from the rigid boolean-logic computer systems you're interacting with on a daily basis.

You're shitting me, right?

Computer engineers are the last people who think in rigid, boolean-logic ways. It's the general population that does that. If you do any serious thinking in any STEM field, you quickly learn that the world is probabilistic in nature, and ambiguity is what you eat for breakfast. What the technical fields do to manage with it is learn to quantify the exact nature of ambiguity. When you do that, by means of probability theory, you learn that ambiguity doesn't mean "anything goes", there are rules it follows.

Like, backchannel intel may be vague, and this also implies it's likely to not be true (unless you can pull out additional evidence in its favour, like e.g. good track record of the person delivering this backchannel intel; that point is discussed in parallel threads). In a sea of noise, the "signal" you see is most likely a coincidence. Not comprehending this (aka. "seeing patterns everywhere") is one of the biggest sources of irrationality in people.

[qwertyuiop924]

Well, as far as ambiguity goes, a CS or CE's job is to fit that round peg into our square hole, with mathematics and neural networking as our hammers.

[linkregister]

Taken out of context, your statement is true. In context, your relativist position isn't applicable. In this case, this is a renowned cryptologist making some assertions. My complaint was that this article is good, but given the author's track record, I want more evidence. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[linkregister]

> the world at large is quite different from the rigid boolean-logic computer systems you're interacting with on a daily basis.

This rhetoric is patronizing and doesn't contribute to the conversation.

[flukus]

> Sometimes it feels as if computer engineers have a unique inability to deal with ambiguous information.

This is a limitation of computers, not the engineers. The engineers are happy to deal with ambiguous information as long as you don't mind ambiguous results.

[gipp]

> Take it in for what it's worth. It's a signal from a sea of noise, nothing more.

His post is the very definition of "taking it for what it's worth".