Wholeheartedly agree with the points in Peco's post, but if anyone's worried about Q-Day, it's not going to be a day and we're mostly going to handle it the same way we deal with any other software security vulnerability. (Spoiler: quantum-proof cryptography is already here. But hold that thought.) It isn't a binary, before we didn't have it now we can use it for everything; we already have it, but it's physically large if I understand correctly and in any case hard to make in the first place (imagine trying to operate computers near absolute zero; real cold fusion stuff, here) and _the capacity is too low to be practical_ – but when it gets practical, it's going to get more practical *gradually*, increasing in bandwidth from "we _can_ decode a secret" to "we can decode this many secrets an hour" possibly even all the way up to "we can decode a secret a minute", etc. (_if_ we can continue increasing its scale like that). Oh, and "we" is the companies/governments that can afford it (see above about the impracticality of the hardware), most of whom have little motivation outside of a war (in which we'd have to worry about cyber-attacks anyway) or spying on specific targets, to (ab)use such capabilities. All of which means that rather than a switch getting flipped and information being suddenly visible instead of secure, rather there will be slowly increasing pressure to switch to other encryption algorithms, which also already exist. So you might someday hear news like, "Well another quantum attack happened this month, but if you upgraded your devices and apps a year ago" (which we all should do in general) "then you're already safe." Except of course, that's basically how security vulnerabilities are handled already: someone finds an attack vector, software gets updated; but for however many years the blame will be laid on quantum computers, for a situation that won't be fundamentally different than information security is today.
(Somewhere along the line, the Feds might decrypt a bunch of data they intercepted years or decades ago. That one thing will probably be… interesting, depending on whether any of the data still matters by the time it happens.)
As for anything "miraculous" these computers could do… probably not that either. They can't compute anything classical computers can't. They just can solve _certain specific complex math problems_ more simply (therefore, theoretically _faster_ if we can ever scale the capacity enough). It _is_ interesting that tech has to keep promising "miracle" breakthroughs that haven't happened and may never happen, though…
Excellent. I think I have learned more about tradition via these Weekly roundups than I have anywhere else.
I hadn't even drew breath and before I knew it I was off reading the two insightful articles penned by Mr. Flanders on 1P5.
Then back to TWR for the rest of paragraph!
It always is a few hours well invested in diversions and recommendations to get through the weekly roundup. Thanks.
On a personal note, I'd recommend everyone to take the plunge and support the Kwasniewski substack with a paid subscription. I'm just nearing my first anniversary of paid subscription, and I find myself slapping myself on my back for finding such a treasure of traditional Catholic resources and commentary.
I am very grateful for your support and your encouragement of others!
This Substack was launched almost 2 years ago and is doing well, but we could definitely use some more paying subscribers as compared with free readers. The ratio now is a little less than 1 to 10. That's good, but there's room for growth. And I have some big announcements to make soon about how T&S will be expanding its efforts.
You're welcome. For what is worth, being now retired, I considered whether I should continue with a paid subscription as the free posts are similarly of the highest quality.
And then it struck me in a number of ways on why I should continue with a paid subscription:
Logical: if everyone enjoyed just the free subscription and posts, the publication would go under in a week. Then where would we be?
Educational: a year's paid subscription has proved to me that I am getting balanced and scholarly instruction, as well as enjoying the variety of disciplines it covers.
Economic: I can't still work out how you do it! So much, consistently erudite, for a bargain price.
Spiritual: I'm reminded in reading, of the normatives of tradition, and the application of praxis. There is an underlying current of charity in your writing, which forces both truth and justice to the fore.
Fraternal: An apostolate which is most definitely reaching thousands upon thousands and making a distance in the defence of our shared tradition.
Charity: who would deny the labourer their wage?
PS. No connection to Dr K. Just a grateful commoner.
Dr. Kwasniewski, I read your recent article at New Liturgical Movement on the older style of confessionals. During my recent trip to Mexico, I got to visit two older, gorgeous churches, with confessionals similar to the ones you shared pictures of in your article. While I have always thought such confessional boxes are astoundingly beautiful, I have always wondered how confessions are maintained private? I mean, it is obvious the penitent must speak softly, but is it possible that confessions more "out in the open" like these where people line up close behind are really private? Leaving the (true) "broom closet" comparison aside, I rather enjoy, and feel more at ease in, an enclosed room when I confess because I know my privacy is certain. It also allows me to speak to the priest more at ease if I need to bring something up.
Yes, I share your preference for sure. I imagine that in the old days people kept a respectful distance from those more open-architecture confessionals, but I still much prefer a "box" where you can close the door and have complete sonic security. :-) Maybe we can consider this an organic development!
But the aesthetics of the box confessionals can be beautiful, too. If you look at churches built between 1900 and 1950 or so, you'll find great examples.
I will try to find pictures of those kinds of box confessionals you mention! This sounds like something interesting to investigate. Or, perhaps someday, you can also draw attention to them in one of your posts at New Liturgical Movement... :)
The Weekly Roundup is a much anticipated highlight of the week!
Those of us who are separated from our former TLMs, or have no access to one, can still participate in the restoration through education and suggested praxis through your wonderfully "curated" links. We are so very grateful for your time and effort.
Thanks for the technology subject. My grand niece is only 2 and her life is saturated by big TV screens with age~Appropriate programming. Her mom works at home on a computer and seems to use technology to keep the child occupied while she is working. Both parents are on their phones constantly, checking social media, and sometimes give my niece an iPad to watch. Mom does read books with her, but I think the percentage is low compared to the absorption rate of technology. I fear where this is going, as I’ve read that young brains are rewired by constant influx of technology. It’s scary.
Trying to keep your Substacks at a reasonable level is difficult when a new site on books, especially old Catholic books, turns up with a year's worth of posts to explore.
I owe old Catholic books a great debt- they helped me read my way into the Church many years ago.
Wholeheartedly agree with the points in Peco's post, but if anyone's worried about Q-Day, it's not going to be a day and we're mostly going to handle it the same way we deal with any other software security vulnerability. (Spoiler: quantum-proof cryptography is already here. But hold that thought.) It isn't a binary, before we didn't have it now we can use it for everything; we already have it, but it's physically large if I understand correctly and in any case hard to make in the first place (imagine trying to operate computers near absolute zero; real cold fusion stuff, here) and _the capacity is too low to be practical_ – but when it gets practical, it's going to get more practical *gradually*, increasing in bandwidth from "we _can_ decode a secret" to "we can decode this many secrets an hour" possibly even all the way up to "we can decode a secret a minute", etc. (_if_ we can continue increasing its scale like that). Oh, and "we" is the companies/governments that can afford it (see above about the impracticality of the hardware), most of whom have little motivation outside of a war (in which we'd have to worry about cyber-attacks anyway) or spying on specific targets, to (ab)use such capabilities. All of which means that rather than a switch getting flipped and information being suddenly visible instead of secure, rather there will be slowly increasing pressure to switch to other encryption algorithms, which also already exist. So you might someday hear news like, "Well another quantum attack happened this month, but if you upgraded your devices and apps a year ago" (which we all should do in general) "then you're already safe." Except of course, that's basically how security vulnerabilities are handled already: someone finds an attack vector, software gets updated; but for however many years the blame will be laid on quantum computers, for a situation that won't be fundamentally different than information security is today.
(Somewhere along the line, the Feds might decrypt a bunch of data they intercepted years or decades ago. That one thing will probably be… interesting, depending on whether any of the data still matters by the time it happens.)
As for anything "miraculous" these computers could do… probably not that either. They can't compute anything classical computers can't. They just can solve _certain specific complex math problems_ more simply (therefore, theoretically _faster_ if we can ever scale the capacity enough). It _is_ interesting that tech has to keep promising "miracle" breakthroughs that haven't happened and may never happen, though…
Excellent. I think I have learned more about tradition via these Weekly roundups than I have anywhere else.
I hadn't even drew breath and before I knew it I was off reading the two insightful articles penned by Mr. Flanders on 1P5.
Then back to TWR for the rest of paragraph!
It always is a few hours well invested in diversions and recommendations to get through the weekly roundup. Thanks.
On a personal note, I'd recommend everyone to take the plunge and support the Kwasniewski substack with a paid subscription. I'm just nearing my first anniversary of paid subscription, and I find myself slapping myself on my back for finding such a treasure of traditional Catholic resources and commentary.
I am very grateful for your support and your encouragement of others!
This Substack was launched almost 2 years ago and is doing well, but we could definitely use some more paying subscribers as compared with free readers. The ratio now is a little less than 1 to 10. That's good, but there's room for growth. And I have some big announcements to make soon about how T&S will be expanding its efforts.
You're welcome. For what is worth, being now retired, I considered whether I should continue with a paid subscription as the free posts are similarly of the highest quality.
And then it struck me in a number of ways on why I should continue with a paid subscription:
Logical: if everyone enjoyed just the free subscription and posts, the publication would go under in a week. Then where would we be?
Educational: a year's paid subscription has proved to me that I am getting balanced and scholarly instruction, as well as enjoying the variety of disciplines it covers.
Economic: I can't still work out how you do it! So much, consistently erudite, for a bargain price.
Spiritual: I'm reminded in reading, of the normatives of tradition, and the application of praxis. There is an underlying current of charity in your writing, which forces both truth and justice to the fore.
Fraternal: An apostolate which is most definitely reaching thousands upon thousands and making a distance in the defence of our shared tradition.
Charity: who would deny the labourer their wage?
PS. No connection to Dr K. Just a grateful commoner.
Dr. Kwasniewski, I read your recent article at New Liturgical Movement on the older style of confessionals. During my recent trip to Mexico, I got to visit two older, gorgeous churches, with confessionals similar to the ones you shared pictures of in your article. While I have always thought such confessional boxes are astoundingly beautiful, I have always wondered how confessions are maintained private? I mean, it is obvious the penitent must speak softly, but is it possible that confessions more "out in the open" like these where people line up close behind are really private? Leaving the (true) "broom closet" comparison aside, I rather enjoy, and feel more at ease in, an enclosed room when I confess because I know my privacy is certain. It also allows me to speak to the priest more at ease if I need to bring something up.
Yes, I share your preference for sure. I imagine that in the old days people kept a respectful distance from those more open-architecture confessionals, but I still much prefer a "box" where you can close the door and have complete sonic security. :-) Maybe we can consider this an organic development!
But the aesthetics of the box confessionals can be beautiful, too. If you look at churches built between 1900 and 1950 or so, you'll find great examples.
For sure!
I will try to find pictures of those kinds of box confessionals you mention! This sounds like something interesting to investigate. Or, perhaps someday, you can also draw attention to them in one of your posts at New Liturgical Movement... :)
The Weekly Roundup is a much anticipated highlight of the week!
Those of us who are separated from our former TLMs, or have no access to one, can still participate in the restoration through education and suggested praxis through your wonderfully "curated" links. We are so very grateful for your time and effort.
Yes, love the recommendations. My copy of 'The Masses of Holy Week & Tenebrae' arrived today.
Thank you, I really appreciate that!
Thanks for the technology subject. My grand niece is only 2 and her life is saturated by big TV screens with age~Appropriate programming. Her mom works at home on a computer and seems to use technology to keep the child occupied while she is working. Both parents are on their phones constantly, checking social media, and sometimes give my niece an iPad to watch. Mom does read books with her, but I think the percentage is low compared to the absorption rate of technology. I fear where this is going, as I’ve read that young brains are rewired by constant influx of technology. It’s scary.
As some have said: "The biggest experiment ever conducted, but with no controls and no rules."
Link to 1P5 piece by Olivia Jones appears non-functional.
What would I do without readers like you??
Link fixed.
PS: Thanks for the mention of my article.
The ex-librarian's wife asks 'Why? Why did I click on Mr. Cook's link?
That is a cryptic comment, at least to me.
Trying to keep your Substacks at a reasonable level is difficult when a new site on books, especially old Catholic books, turns up with a year's worth of posts to explore.
I owe old Catholic books a great debt- they helped me read my way into the Church many years ago.
Looking forward to diving into this after Easter.
Okay. Now I get it. If it's any help, I am taking about a month after after next week's post.
In fact, traditionalism is approximately 6,000 years old.