— SteemCN

Versus "Security Through Obscurity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity So for my first voice herein (herein whereas legal parlance/speak I determine is good warning before after my next comma punctuation mark) writing, I am talking to "Computer Science" majors with my reference, in case that is not part of your training now you know and learned from me first.

(Should I write ~~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity~~ (Markdown Strikethrough format with double-approximation sign makes it crossed through) in such vein? [That might pain some coders, and make some people have difficulty, in that format, reading.])
Versus "Ontological Security" For my second voice, I am talking (well, listening for my turn to talk, because dad rules when I was age 5-13 are that "within reason" (quoting their words vebatim) "50% of the time is for each of us to talk", and we do not try goin' to 51%, personally I aimed for exactly 49% total talking time when I was 11 years old, we count letters as we put our left foot before our right foot you know, it's in our magical DNA blood powers from making spells, curses to fight my mother when my other parent became a monster we would not dare say they're a human being obviously, clearly we took sides) to my civilian military engineer parent about serious thousand-year outcomes and realistic intelligence trajectories, err, sorry, maybe some abusage military language usage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_security. (Okay we were arguing, I asked them to stop talking with ontological supremicism as their goal, maybe you can tell sorry.)

RE: Bitcism

You are viewing a single comment's thread from: