I don't want to be very mean but I don't understand why I used to think this guy was so awesome. Maybe he is, I don't know...but I started to like him before twitter was big and peoples personality really shown through. After that I guess I forgot about him and then he exploded later on with the advent of massive amounts of social media and pop-science stuff.
At this point I can't help but imagine him as part of the 'Smug' South Park episode smelling his own farts and such.
I don't know him personally so I don't want to make a personal attack or anything but am I the only one that feels this way after liking him at one point?
>>52419517
he never actually tweeted that, just so u know (not op)
Hah, this makes it even better. Deepak Chopra's equally ridiculous response (though he is right he is missing the mark completely while trying to also be smug about it).
>>52419564
>war of the memes, who ever wins we lose!
>>52419561
OP here, yes he did, I just got it from his Twitter account, that is my own screenshot.
>>52419517
What's so bad about that?
when is this nigger going to just stick to cosmos
>>52419564
is the response true?
How about a system that is protected by something random, that not even the creator can know?
>>52419561
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/551378648578916353
>>52419517
pop science is a joke in general
https://youtu.be/MhR89QBlc80
>>52419624
>>52419594
shit, you're right, sorry I read the year as 2016, not 2015
h-he's not being serious is he r-right?
already didn't think much of him but this is just...
>>52419632
Can't even watch that.
Picture related is the KING WITHOUT A CROWN of 'Pop-Science' in my opinion.
>>52419617
That's almost AI
>>52419617
Reddit pls leave.
>>52419659
If you read his other tweets it seems fairly likely that he was being very, very serious with this one.
He loves making the sort of comments that you can imagine him smuggly smirking about 'they are giogn to love this one, it is so clever/innovative/mind-blowing/SCIENCE RULES-y' while he types.
>>52419670
>>52419698
Shouldnt you be in school?
>>52419564
Why do I get the feeling that neither of these people are important
>>52419517
Nah hes pretty stupid in my opinion. Kind of in the same boat with Bill Nye. Just memes of atheism (they don't question anything). For example, whether you believe evolution is true or not, you should be skeptical about everything. They say that too, but then arent.
And he warps history in Cosmos. No thanks
>>52419670
I always wanted to put my wiener in his asistant
I'll give him credit for this one being pretty good, haha.
>>52419517
>>>/pol/ is that way you bigoted faggot
>Neil "global warming is real" SmokeDeGrasse Tyson
>>52420236
How is this bigoted in any way?
>>52419517
Are you sure this wasn't some sort of sarcasm? It sounds pretty sarcastic to me. Especially considering this tweet >>52420126
Seems to be in the same vein of sarcasm/humor to me.
If not then, while a retarded tweet, I don't hold it against him. He's an astrophysicist, not a computer scientist
>>52420288
Did you read any of his other tweets? It is perfectly in line with his 'serious' tweets as well.
He's popular because he's black and deals in pop science. Not really somebody worth paying much attention to.
>>52420353
Wow, racist much? Mods, ban this man ;((((
>>52419517
Because you were a Redditor probably. Intelligent people always thought he was a dumbass. In some video about atheism he compared it to fucking tennis players, What a retard. All he does is spout science opinions and the sheeple eat it up.
>>52420339
That was a joke, it's supposed to make you expect some trivia about the length of veins or some shit.
>>52420394
I wasn't a 'redditor', I was an infantry Marine and it was 10 years ago. I didn't even have words like 'redditor' in my vocabulary.
Bill Nye seems pretty alright but NGT seems like a total fucking shitter.
>>52420429
...no kidding, I wasn't talking about the obvious joke tweet. I meant that the 'unhackble' tweet lines up just as well with his 99% 'serious' tweets not just this one humurous tweet.
>>52420442
They're both shit, Bill is only popular because of millennial nostalgia wabking
Because you like/d popsci bullshit.
>>52419517
>unhackable systems
You mean systems that arent connected to the internet, right?
America wont get hacked for shit if we'd just take these critical systems offline.
>but then I have to drive places for data
Suck it the fuck up. This is national security.
>>52420393
Not racist, just dropping truth bombs.
>>52420442
He's the old white version of Tyson.
>>52420503
Every system has it's cons and the pros and cons have to be weighed up (which I'm sure they are). Just taking a system offline doesn't mean you're safer from attacks.
>>52420126
That joke is old and he didnt invent it.
He's definitely a fucking Reddit fag to the core.
>>52420126
>Just an FYI
Just an For Your Information
>Putting & after a comma
D- See me after class.
>>52420546
>Just taking a system offline doesn't mean you're safer from attacks.
I have to disagree with that. If a system is offline, the only attack that can occur is a physical one.
I'd like to think that America can still defend against those.
Espionage would be a hell of a lot harder if the spy had to actually go to the place he wanted to infiltrate.
>>52420600
>>Just an FYI
>Just an For Your Information
You cannot be serious.
>>52420801
>You cannot be serious.
I know!
That's what I thought as well, which is why I had to bring light to it.
>>52419617
When you have the proper password/passwords for a system because you're supposed to have them to begin with you're not "hacking" it per say. Instead you're just sabotaging or vandalizing it. Hacking implies that you breach something you're not supposed to have access to and when you access a system you're actually supposed to have access to, it's not hacking.
Simply put: "Hacking" a system is getting access into it when you're not supposed to have access to it. When you're supposed to have access to it, it's not hacking anymore. The same way getting into your own car and driving it into the ditch is not "stealing" it or "joyriding" in it.
>>52420394
i have never seen the video you are talking about or even watched/read/heard anything to do with neil degrasse tyson, but what i can say is that
a) nothing precludes tennis from being a valid analogy except the validity of the analogy itself
b) you're a fucking edgy gen-x'er loser calling people "sheeple" unironically
c) you're not as smart as you think you are
>>52420632
>I have to disagree with that. If a system is offline, the only attack that can occur is a physical one.
You're ignoring the opportunity cost of taking a system offline. Information is then transferred much slower due to systems being offline, which could have an impact on safety.
>>52420933
I'm not sure where you are getting your definition of hacking from man.
Almost all hacking is done by people on stuff they have complete access too, from their own computers, to their cars, phones, locks, instruments, etc.
It's not about 'breaching something you’re not supposed to have access to', it's about doing things that aren't immediately apparent/making things do what you want them to do/using things in ways they weren't originally meant for/etc. and yes breaking into systems is one facet of this.
He wants to get rid of the crackas
>>52421019
When you have the actual passwords in front of you and don't need the effort of getting that password trough random underhanded measures or getting into the system without the password, it's hardly hacking. What I mean by having access to something I do mean having the passwords necessary to get in and mess around with it at hand rather than having to put in effort to get the passwords or bypassing them.
Of course what I'm referring to is actually called "cracking", but the mainstream instead choses to mislabel it as "hacking". The original term did use to mean just making a piece of electronics do something it's not supposed to do or was never designed to do it.
So I suppose you're talking about the original definition of the word and I'm talking about the re-definition done by the media since the 1980's.
>>52419517
I'm 12 years old
Can /g/ tell me why an unhackable system is impossible?
Excluding inside jobs or mugging someone for information
>>52419564
Solution there, it seems to me, is to kill the system's creators.
>>52421420
The basic idea is somewhat similar to something called the "uncertainty principle" found in physics.
At it's core the idea is that there really isn't a way to conclusively prove that there is absolutely no way for a system to be hacked. There are only ways to prove that a system is safe from specific types of hacks, not that there doesn't exist a type of hack, currently known or not, that can be used to hack a system.
The dismissal of the idea of an un-hackable system is based on a lack of proof that there is such a thing as an un-hackable system, rather than actual proof that every system is hackable.
>>52421019
"Hacker" is a verified buzzword. There's at least three definitions, and both yours and the other anons are new ones.
>>52419681
>base security use RNG
>Must be an AI
>>52421221
Haha, context of this presentation please?
>>52420983
a + b * c = x
if x is greater than the number of shitposts in this thread, then we don't do one.
I'm not sure if it's him who shits me, but the super science friend squad on friendbuck who love this guy sure as hell rustle my cosmic jimmies.
Also hate how for the last ten years it's been the norm for pseudo academics to refer to blackholes as anything more than theory.
Of course they're real, but every fact we have about them is still wholly theoretical. Fucking keep being the magical fact wizards you fucks. People love to follow, you will always have someone to pretend you are superior to.
Kids today eat this shit up.
>>52421487
I laughed too hard at this. Thanks m8
>>52419698
MOOOOODS
