On Dec 1, 2013, at 09:51 , Kyle Sluder <k...@ksluder.com> wrote: > That’s all well and good, but why are we still debating this approach when > Mike Abdullah has posted a far superior scheme with an infinitely faster hash > (file size), *zero* risk of data loss, and less performance penalty than > using a low-collision hashing algorithm?
+1 > […] regardless of how infinitesimal the chance On Dec 1, 2013, at 07:36 , Graham Cox <graham....@bigpond.com> wrote: > I’m thinking this is good enough, really. The odds of a particular user > having two different image files that collide, and happening to add those > exact images at once to our app must be astronomically low. Talk me out of it > :) I doubt I can talk you out of it, but the truth is that you — like every one of the rest of us, because we’ve got human brains — are really, really lousy at intuiting about randomness and probabilities. What we *think* isn’t worth the paper our emails are printed on. _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
