That's not what gp was talking about.

aspenmayer 8 days ago | parent | next [-]

It was more of an allusion than a reference, but expectations in communication ought be acknowledged and accommodated, so I apologize if you misunderstood my point as it wasn’t clear from context. Please see my edit.

(My prior comment referenced Operation Mincemeat at the time of its reply, for those reading after the fact.)

▲

aspenmayer 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why did you say this to me, and not also to the other person who came after me? The fact that the other person is also upvoted kind of puts your argument to rest. Being contrary isn’t a great argumentative style on HN. You have no way of knowing what GP meant.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45088082

▲

RugnirViking 7 days ago | parent [-]

because the other person hadn't said their piece by the time I said this, and because I stand by the fact that it's simply wrong to conflate leaving a body from england to deceive an enemy about the indented invasion location of an operation (regular deception, no cryptographic purpose). I think it's different, cryptographically speaking, to trying to provoke the enemy to use a known plaintext to try and help breaking their code, which I find a very interesting concept. For what its worth, I also downvoted the other comment yesterday, and the third comment today. I'm frankly astonished so many people are conflating the imo clearly different ideas.

I appreciate your edit that completely replaced the topic of your post; it is now much more interesting. But unfortunately, I could not edit my comment by the time I saw you had changed it

▲

aspenmayer 7 days ago | parent [-]

> For what its worth, I also downvoted the other comment yesterday

Seems like you just don’t like me. Sounds like motivated reasoning to me. But I thought you meant (my) other comment, not theirs. I think it’s possibly an issue with tone being hard to read in text. In any case, I try to add a correction instead of simply calling out mistakes, but you were right to say whatever you thought. I don’t mean to silence you, but your words had a chilling effect on my speech, so maybe give some reasoning and a correct answer next time instead of just calling someone wrong. Anyone can do that, and they too often do.

At least now I know it’s due to that argument being kind of a weak one. I thought they were concerned with the notes especially, which is why I included that reference because it specifically referred to notes. I think there may be other WW2 examples, but I couldn’t lay hand to them at the time.

> I appreciate your edit; it is now much more interesting.

I appreciate you saying that. I don’t mean to assume you don’t like me, but it seemed that way at the time you said it. Apologies for assuming, and for any offense caused.

Edit: For what it’s worth I didn’t downvote you either time, and in fact I upvoted the comment this one is in reply to.

	▲	aspenmayer 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		I can’t edit this anymore, but you are correct. > (regular deception, no cryptographic purpose) That is a very good distinction with a difference, and you were right to elucidate this; I only wish you had done it in your original reply to me. In any case, my stream of consciousness post above was in haste, and I think we were both editing at the time. I will try to post better. I wonder if folks are copy posting me? I honestly can’t say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copypasta https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/copypasta