[03:35 AM] 215Mb$ echo "End of 32 only listed 3 options for Zabini. The fourth creates a 3-way tie. Zabini shoots himself as traitor." | sha1sum
09a3ee331d8900b7b7475b0a89911207672cbbda -
When the -n flag is added to the echo command (as suggested by ata) the hash matches.
So, unless orthonormal has exploited a security vulnerability on the Less Wrong server, orthonormal has expended a costly number of computing cycles to defeat the purpose of the hash function, I misunderstand the cryptographic guarantees provided by the hash function, or something equally unlikely, orthonormal really did write the following back on 25 July:
End of 32 only listed 3 options for Zabini. The fourth creates a 3-way tie. Zabini shoots himself as traitor.
I meant to say that orthonormal really did write the message back on the 25th with p=.99, and here are the three events that I am aware of that might cause my high level of confidence to be misplaced—the three largest sources of my remaining uncertainty, if you will.
If I assign p=.99 to an outcome and the outcome turns out to be false, it is a good bet that I misunderstood the question or misunderstood some proximate cause of the outcome, and in this case, the proximate cause I am most likely to misunderstand has to do with properties of hash functions.
July 25 (after Chapter 32, prediction for Chapter 33):
SHA-1: f5721b3c6010973ee195dc160d0679477401a3df
Copying here to verify lack of editing in future.
Translation:
End of 32 only listed 3 options for Zabini. The fourth creates a 3-way tie. Zabini shoots himself as traitor.
Try echo -n.
Ah, you’re right. I forgot
echoappends a newline by default.When the -n flag is added to the echo command (as suggested by ata) the hash matches.
So, unless orthonormal has exploited a security vulnerability on the Less Wrong server, orthonormal has expended a costly number of computing cycles to defeat the purpose of the hash function, I misunderstand the cryptographic guarantees provided by the hash function, or something equally unlikely, orthonormal really did write the following back on 25 July:
Erm, yeah. I thought we all understood the hash scheme.
I see I have failed to communicate unambiguously.
I meant to say that orthonormal really did write the message back on the 25th with p=.99, and here are the three events that I am aware of that might cause my high level of confidence to be misplaced—the three largest sources of my remaining uncertainty, if you will.
If I assign p=.99 to an outcome and the outcome turns out to be false, it is a good bet that I misunderstood the question or misunderstood some proximate cause of the outcome, and in this case, the proximate cause I am most likely to misunderstand has to do with properties of hash functions.
Clear now?