personal overflow post;

[scriptive]

Comments

[scriptive]

[ continued from here ]

I actually do find it fun! But I know not everyone does. You could even do multiple substitutions with multiple keys, or change the arrangement of how things are said, or a million other things. Decoding things like that, it requires you to kind of think about the person in question's mind, too, right?

[roseblooms]

It certainly does. Using a keyword makes a simple alphabet substitution comparatively much stronger in one easy step, but only if it's not something easily guessed.

And besides, any substitution cypher is still subject to a letter frequency analysis. Provided the message is long enough for average frequencies to apply, you can disguise the base message all you want, but in the end it'll still always be subject to the same letter frequencies in English.

[scriptive]

[ ...oh. hm. this feels Extremely Familiar, give her a second. ]

You could also use two different grammars at two different rates to make it even harder for someone to crack. If there were different languages made for that sort of thing, it might make it even more difficult! Of course, you'd have to know those written languages first. Like runes.

[roseblooms]

All of which boils down to the same general principle, I think, which is: codes and ciphers function because of a combination of complexity and secrecy. The holder of the key has the ability to waive the secrecy — but there's really no getting around the complexity, no matter whether the message is intended for you or not.

[scriptive]

I think I'd like to play that game sometime! I mean, ciphering things back and forth and seeing who can break theirs quickest.

[roseblooms]

You'd need rules for it, certainly. Like a fair mystery — something that ensures the codes and ciphers can be rendered difficult, but not impossible.

[scriptive]

Like rules on how many loops you could do, or that sort of thing? So there aren't too many tricks but there are still some!

(Also, have you had anything weirder than random pictures happen to you thus far?)

[roseblooms]

Exactly. Some form of regulation, at least — because there are, after all, such things as literally unbreakable codes.

(How much weirder are you thinking?)

[scriptive]

I'm always impressed by that kind of thing. Although I think sometimes codes can be more a way to buy time than a full stall, right?

(The memories that people are talking about, mostly.)

[roseblooms]

Well, it depends. Have you heard of a one-time pad?

(I haven't, actually. Though I've heard stories of illicit packages being sent through the mail, but I haven't received any of those either.)

[scriptive]

Encryption with a shared key, right?

(I haven't received any items either. I've also heard that we may experience physical changes?)

[roseblooms]

A disposable shared key. Hence the "one-time" aspect — one sheet of the pad, one encryption, and then it's disposed of.

(I've heard mentions of traumatic physical injury.)

[scriptive]

Then yes, I've heard of it!

(I got told about scars, but it seems like someone also gained back a limb that looks a little strange?)

[roseblooms]

(They GAINED BACK a LIMB??)

[scriptive]

(I saw them talking about it. Apparently they didn't have one, and then they did?)

[roseblooms]

(That's not just horrifying, that ought to be nigh-impossible. How could someone possibly...?)

[scriptive]

(I do keep being told the impossible is happening a lot, but I'm also not certain how it works. But it seems like if it's the same people who made horses Not, they could maybe suddenly make an arm...Un-Not? That's not the word I want, but.)

[roseblooms]

(That seems as though that should be two different spheres of influence, though. Mass acceptance of the elimination of a CONCEPT versus...the physical replacement of a tangible...

Does the limb WORK, do we know? Is it functional?)

[scriptive]

(No - I mean, I don't know more currently. I only saw a mention of it when I was skimming through things, so it's possible more will come up about it later? It felt rude to ask outright.)

[roseblooms]

(I see. That does make sense, yes — I can see how it would be terribly rude to simply...ask.)

[scriptive]

(At any rate, I don't think this is a practical joke. Which is worrying!!)

[roseblooms]

(To say the least.)

...

(Why are we still writing to each other in parentheses?)

[scriptive]

(I'm actually not sure, so I guess we can stop!)

Maybe we're both just very dedicated to themes?

[roseblooms]

I'm sure part of it is graduate assistant pedantism, as well. Spelling, punctuation, grammar, being right always.

[scriptive]

I think for me I just forgot about it! Since I don't really think I'm right always, although I like to think I usually do the first three properly.

For the record, I do think the flashback things are real! Or I am getting really imaginative suddenly about really strange things.