TIL: This meant that he did not allow proof by contradiction

Embedding from books doesn't work on dreamwidth, so here's a snapshot:

The internet of things blowing up here and there

Cyberweapons can be used as remotely controlled cross-border mines affecting the enemy's infrastructure at a critical juncture. For example, in the early 2000s Israel and USA mined Iranian centrifuges to slow down uranium enrichment in Iran. Recently we could see how foreign hacking helped mine US political infrastructure for the purpose of influencing the 2016 elections campaign.

Today, we have no idea how much of our infrastructure has been mined already and for what purpose. Unlike nuclear weapons, cyberweapons can be applied in a scalable manner to demonstrate one's resolve to use a crippling force. I wonder whether private utility companies would be required to submit to government-mandated tests. Or maybe insurance companies will have to set something up after a spectacular infrastructure failure. Wrt individuals, what would be an equivalent of a sticky note covering the laptop camera if one wants protection against eavesdropping or outright sabotage in an autonomous vehicle?

Useful links: negotiating with liars

https://hbr.org/2016/07/how-to-negotiate-with-a-liar

I'd love to see the transcript of the Khuilo–Covfefe conversation in Hamburg. It's probably the most instructive case of negotiations between two professional liars. In particular, the question "Did you do it?" was equivalent to "Are you lying to me?". And the answer was Yes, which sounded like No. Fascinating stuff!