# Reading Response | Set 1

## 1 | Reflection on [How HTTPS Secures Connections: What Every Web Dev Should Know](https://blog.hartleybrody.com/https-certificates/)

Best STI* protection against the internet? Math. This is how Hartley Brody describes the process of security through key encryption on the internet. *Or at least my way of understanding what he meant.*
###### STI in this context meaning System Technology Infection

What Brodly taught us in our first TechEd class is there are different paths (***networks***) to our destination (***requests***) on the internet and different options of protection (***HTTPS***) that is used to get to them. On this path, any malicious user could stop and see this information on your path; Information you do not want them to see like your passwords or credit card information.

To prevent this STI from even getting a chance, things like TLS, or more specifically, Public Key Encryption, are used.

##### But Carolyn, I thought you said math was the best way?

It is, through Diffie-Hellman, which is the most common key exchange. Brody informs us that this process is essentially a shared secret between a client & server that is agreed upon without having to transmit it over the public connection. *What does math have to do with this method?* Its all about the ***roots and prime numbers***.
- client and server agree on a root
- client and server agree on a large prime
- client and server have their own private key
- client and server exchange a mixture of their private keys
- client and server mix their answers together to get their shared secret
<br/>


<br/>

How does this math actually protect you? The only thing that is sent publicly is the other half of your missing puzzle. Brody points out that this half is useless because the calculation is basically impossible to reverse in comparison to starting from the beginning. This is also only done once so everything after is unintelligible to the malicious person.

Besides Key Encryption, other important forms of protection are ***Authentication*** which use ***certificates*** who basically make sure you are who you say you are. Like duo bothering Professor Reagle before he can go onto canvas.

What Brody mentions brings up multiple questions to me about the websites I use like:

- how do things like gmail or even icloud know when your passwords are compromised?
- When things like chrome or norton stating that websites are not safe to enter, are certifications and extended validation the ones sending that information to us?

## 2 | Reflection on: make it stick - The science of successful learning

---

What and how you have chosen to learn can save your life. Either in a life & death situation or saving your grade.

The main points we circle around are that memory is best reinforced by retrieval. Retrieval is useful when done consistently and the way you learn should always be done in a cumulative manner. Basically, everything your teachers have been telling you was actually meant to help you!

*surprising isn't it?*

It is not surprising to hear that although cramming for an exam may have its benefits for the test the following day, what you've studied does not last long after that (p.25). That would tap into the knowledge of short-term memory and long-term memory. The way we like to ***"study"***, we lean towards instant gratification; Which is more so passing through short-term memory. To help ourselves survive in life, we need to be able to absorb information in a way that settles into long-term memory.

Testing/quizzing yourself, as well as elaboration, help with the molding of long-term memory is the way to do so.

The way textbooks have quizzes and or questions at the end of the chapter, consuming chunks of information and immediately recalling it helps the information settle.

Although time-consuming for some, being able to learn in chunks is beneficial. "Effortful retrieval makes for stronger learning and retention" (p. 24) Alongside testing, being able to put into your own words what you had just learned helps engrave it also. The two go hand and hand. Things like Quizlet, teaching a friend the material, and testing yourself with your own translation help immensely compared to rereading.

All in all, what every **helpful** mentor or professor have stated to you is true. The matter of surviving is up to you and whether or not you choose to take the easy but risky route or the hard but basically guaranteed outcome.

My only caveat to this is if we are all aware of how long and hard processes of learning is, why are students not taught about time management? Having the time to create these self-tests and translating the material to our own words may consume a lot more time when not instructed on how to pace yourself properly.

## 3 | Reflection on: [Gossip](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/dtys4tyk/release/2#gossip)

Gossip is ***vital*** to understanding humans. *According to Robin Dunbar*.

The reason why gossip is a central to understanding humanity is because it is a way we connect through a mutual situations. We **analyze**. At least this is the way I understand Dunbar's thinking. He originally believed this because:

###### Humans are smart, Why? --> We have large brains --> Due to our social groups size & dynamics --> Why is that important? Relationship growth + maintenance

Dunbar figured there is a reason for the size of our brain. He also understood that the reason we are advanced is because we are social beings. Being social beings for us usually entails language which requires more brain power.

This is all about relationship growth and maintenance which is where gossip comes in. Though gossip is just an umbrella term; ***Grooming*** is what is most important. Grooming in this context is not negative though, for the most part it's just how alliances are formed and disputes resolved.

Just like how we are put into bubbles without realizing it through our clicks online. We are formed into social groups by having discussions about the media we consume. Take Twitter for example, types of media you consume allows you to interact with certain "stans" or just social communities. Within these communities you are able to actually analyze the episode, or character or whatever it may be with only a certain few in the community.

"Dunbar argues that gossip requires a sophisticated type of social cognition known as the theory of mind through which we infer the mental states of others."

These few people would be apart of the number Dunbar came up with: **150**

###### "*In any case, Dunbar’s number of 150 is, roughly, the cognitive limit of how many relationships humans can maintain given their complexity*"

This can be seen through other online social communities like discords formed by online personalities to have their fans communicate with one another.

Although a thought I may have to counter if an actual connection matters. While a discussion between two individuals creates a stronger connection between the two; When looking at parasocial relationships, does the actual discussion or engagement have to be personal or intentional? There are some people who believe that the creator they watch are specifically speaking and reaching out to them personally. They are still assuming the belief of the creator but it is not necessarily true.

## 4 | Reflection on: [Alienated: You Fail It! Your Skill is Not Enough!](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/euf2ckop/release/2)


From [serial killers](https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tLP1TfIqqjKzUkxYPTizSnNTlTITUzPyy8pSQQAfKQJWQ&q=luka+magnotta&oq=luka+m&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j46i512l2j0i512j46i10i433i512j46i10i512j0i512l3j0i271.2150j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) to online commentators, talking smack on the internet is how they thrive. Trolls or **pests** as I would like to call them, live on the internet to attack and harass for the sake of entertainment and try to back it up as a first amendment right or for the sake of good.

Throughout the text, Reagle gives multiple instances where these pests have blasted off and tried to rationalize their chaotic behavior. The origins of this behavior online date back to Usenet and formed into what we see today on Twitter as fighting through the QRTs.

One reason why this behavior is so prevalent now is because of how you could go on without ever really giving out who you are. Without the identification online, you grow internet balls*. Why not say whatever you want however you want if you can't get caught? That's how Luka Magnotta went about his ways. Posting gruesome videos on the internet with little to no details so that it would be impossible to track him down but he would still get the attention he wanted.

###### the ability to say whatever you want online to someone in a way you wouldn't be able to do in their face

But there's also the fact that we aren't aware of how what we say is impacting the person we are speaking to. Although we may not realize it, nonverbal communication is the most important part of overall communication. Interpretation and reaction to what you are saying will affect what you say next.

##### If a comedian practices his set to an online audience versus a real live audience, the reactions would affect the follow-up remark and the comedian's confidence.

The lack of identification and the loss of nonverbal communication factor into what Zimbardo called **deindividuation**: a loss of self and social norms. Because of Deindividuation, as Reagle pointed out, those who jump into online communities might become more "extreme by placing themselves in an online bubble of the likeminded or being exposed to mean-spirited comments that make them more polarized in their views."

Different from the [regular bubbles](https://hackmd.io/@cazmingu/ByCBTgWMo), in which just your activity online can put you into. This path online is from your behavior and consuming other hateful behavior, leading to ultimately intensely hateful content. Although this behavior could be deemed as entertainment to those partaking. I would argue there is a difference between [TUOT](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPlzv7__-j4&t=662s) and LOLing at tragedy. The social cues aren't clicking in either; TUOT with chatters not knowing boundaries and giving way too much information to someone you don't know versus disrespecting the loss of others for the sake of entertainment. At least with Noel and his TUOT, these chatters are expecting the response Noel does usually; seeking the joke.

These pests online target unsuspecting people usually. Those who annoy them or are not following their way of engagement online. Sadly this is usually "handled" by not handling them at all, just plain old ignoring them.

Ignoring or not caring about this does not necessarily make the infestation go away. The pests are just going to find more impactful ways to get their message across; With things like death threats, doxing, stalking, or even swatting.
Some take it to the extent of harassing your employer to the extent of your termination what happened to Adria Richards.

Adria's case is very interesting to me as it amplifies the question "Can an angry woman get ahead?" Women are not a part of the infestation for the most part. The women who speak out against it in an angry manner get dogpiled with hate and harassment to a disgusting degree. This can be seen with many female characters online. For example prevalent Twitch streamer [Pokimane](https://www.twitch.tv/pokimane), and her battle with Jidion and Ninja. Similar case to Adria where her anger was well supported with rules already in place but the hate against them was still received. Although in [Pokimane's case](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7lA0prkTwI), she was deemed victor in the eyes of Twitch.

If we can't ignore them or fight back, what can we do? Reagle suggests curating comments left by pests, and "identify abusive behavior as odious and welcome and support targets of abuse - whether emotionally, financially, or legally."

My only question is isn't this what we already do? With platforms like Twitch that identify terms that have been abused to hate others, pests will still find a way to continue what they do best. Comforting those who are attacked is not always possible, once someone leaves their computer, there isn't any way to ensure they are well.

I believe Twitch tries their best to handle situations that involve these pests the best in comparison to other social media companies. I believe the only way to get rid of the infestation is to remove the ability to interact with them. Through filters, sub-only chat, reactions pulled from chat and moderation. Although this would cause an uproar in the fight against freeze peach, a piece of paper created years ago for cis white men should not be followed with such passion.

## 5 | Reflection on: [The Actual Science of James Damore’s Google Memo](https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/)

Women getting thrown into the fire once again. The skills, capabilities, and impact of women have always been questioned for no valid reason. The main critique is this overwhelming difference between the two sexes that seems to exist to people like James Damore. This overwhelming difference does not exist to the extent James oh so passionately believes. Just as Schmitt told WIRED, all that is drastically different is mostly biological. Everything else is based on each individual. How we were raised, how we associate different words, feelings, and objects, and even how we view our parents is the rest of the difference.

James believes in this is not the case; He thinks there are huge differences that need to be addressed in the workplace. James thinks there are different titles that each sex would excel better in than the other. Although he felt this way, his company did not, which was upsetting to him. He felt as if Google is its own bubble and does not want to change. James feels "*silenced*" in his workplace but probably does not realize that he himself is in his own bubble. James probably thought that when he posted his thoughts online they would only go to those who thought similarly; Probably due to his media maybe giving him what he wanted to hear. Unfortunately for James, science does not back him up.

As a psych major, any given experiment and its results can be manipulated in a way where it follows anyone's narrative. James was able to back up his beliefs with a fact but it was not the whole truth. Psychology and the study of gender are still ongoing but there are some discoveries that make it clearer that it isn't about a sex difference. It is important to note as I've mentioned earlier that children from a young age get "gender-specific treatment, which can enhance or inhibit any innate differences".

Molteni and Rogers bring up how
#### "The science of difference is a mushball, and trying to understand differences among populations only makes it messier. Every cognitive or personality trait will have a wide distribution among a given population—sex, ethnicity, nationality, age, whatever—and those distributions may only vary slightly. Which means huge chunks of the population may overlap. For any given trait, men may be more different from each other than from women, let’s say."

Humans, or more so our brains are easily adaptable when given the opportunity. As Diane Halpern points out, "That's why we send our children to school. There are areas where, on average, women excel and on average, men excel, but everyone gets better with education. But it means we cannot know the influence of environmental versus biological variables, even at very young ages". There is no innate skill as James would like to argue.

I'd have to agree with Molteni and Rogers with "If Google was, for Damore, an echo chamber, that's because his was the only voice he was really willing to hear." The capability of women is not based on their biology; Everyone is capable of anything if they have enough experience and knowledge in the area if they were given the opportunity.