So, the size of the key doesn’t directly relate to the size of the cipher, which also doesn’t directly relate to security. AES is 128 bit , can have 128, 192, or 256 but keys and is currently not known to have any workable weaknesses.

Largely a cipher isn’t weak if guessing the key is the only weakness, since every cipher is vulnerable to brute force. It’s weak if you can figure out the message without needing the key.

That’s no longer a one time pad. That’s closer to a homebrew stream cipher with the weakness of having a key that you just hope no one notices.

You need a way to generate a psuedo random sequence that’s synchronized. You can then use that random stream as something that works like a stream cipher.

Getting synchronized sources of random numbers like that isn’t trivial, but it can be done.

To spitball a notion: get something like a small microcontroller that can drive a small screen, no wireless capabilities needed. Putting an implementation of something like the hotp algorithm on it will let you get some random data with each button press. That data can basically be used like a one time pad where you press a button each time you need more data. People decrypting the data just need to start at the same point in the sequence.

There are so many issues with this that I haven’t thought of, but it’s the most reasonable approximation of a pen and paper algorithm that has modern security levels and can be done in a reasonable amount of time.

Basically, you’re going to want to look into stream ciphers. Since those can be done without feeding the data into them, it’s possible to have a more disconnected system.

It’s worth noting that against a governmental adversary, you’re far more likely to be revealed via poor application of a custom crypto system than by a targeted bypass of a commonplace one.
If you’re under suspicion, a cop can grab the piece of paper you did your work on out of the trash if you forgot to burn it and no decryption is required. Being physically readable, the key material can be seized and it’s lost. If they have a warrant they can put a camera in your house and just record your paper.
With a cellphone, the lowest level of scrutiny that can use a backdoor that we know of would be a sealed fisa court order. Anything less official would require more scrutiny, since the NSA isn’t going to send a targeted payload to the phone of a generic malcontent/domestic subversive.

Widely used crypto systems address an extremely wide array of possible attacks, most of which aren’t related to the cipher but instead to issues of key management and rotation. This can give you guarantees about message confidentiality being preserved backwards in time if the key is stolen,cand only new messages being readable, as an example. (Perfect forward secrecy)

What you’re looking for can be made, but you need to strongly consider if it actually makes you more secure, or less. Probably less.

I’m sad that it’s children paying the price though. They don’t have any say in anything. It’s child abuse to intentionally infect them with a preventable disease.

In my opinion, public figures, including celebrities, give a degree of consent implicitly by seeking to be public figures. I dont think that for celebrities that should extend to lewd or objectionable material, but if your behavior has been to seek being a public figure you can’t be upset when people use your likeness in various ways.

For politicians, I would default to “literally everything is protected free speech”, with exceptions relating to things that are definitively false, damaging and unrelated to their public work.
“I have a picture of Elon musk engaging in pedophillia” is all those, and would be justifiably removed. Anything short of that though should be permitted.

Do you think I made this donation?

I replied to someone saying it was sad someone gave money to a murderer.
I don’t think it’s sad someone gave money to help someone they think might not be a murderer, and even if you think they are one, it’s not sad someone had the impulse to help push back against what they saw as a biased application of the Justice system.

I understand you think that’s misguided in this case. Do you understand how that’s kind of a nonsequitur?

What does that have to do with anything?

Someone with resources gave money to aid the defense of someone they think is being treated unjustly after watching and seeing what they thought was mistreatment.

Are you just trying to aggravate people, or do you actually have a point?

They’re saying that they find due process to be lacking and the prosecution to be political.
Do you think it’s depressing that someone would donate money to the defense of someone they think is being inappropriately prosecuted?
If you think they’re guilty, you should still want them to get the best defense possible, so that when they’re found guilty it’s airtight. Our justice system is based on an adversarial model. If the prosecution, with the resources of the state, can’t successfully argue that they did it and that their arrest and all procedures were properly followed, do you really want that to still mean someone faces the death penalty?

Cool story bro. Keep being angry about the meaning of words I guess, if it makes you happy.

Yeah, I know how it works, and I also know how different types of AI work.

It’s a field from the 50s concerned with making systems that perceive their environment and change how they execute their tasks based on those perceptions to maximize the fulfillment of their task.

Yes, all modern laundry machines utilize AI techniques involving interpolation of sensor readings into a lookup table to pick wash parameters more intelligently.

You’ve let sci-fi notions of what AI is get you mad at a marketing department for realizing that we’re back to being able to label AI stuff correctly.

You can’t see a benefit to a washing machine that can wash clothes without you needing to figure out how much soap to add or how many rinse cycles it needs?

I genuinely pity anyone so influenced by marketing that they can’t look at what a feature actually does before deciding they hate it.

The reassuring thing is that AI actually makes sense in a washing machine. Generative AI doesn’t, but that’s not what they use. AI includes learning models of different sorts. Rolling the drum a few times to get a feel for weight, and using a light sensor to check water clarity after the first time water is added lets it go “that’s a decent amount of not super dirty clothes, so I need to add more water, a little less soap, and a longer spin cycle”.

They’re definitely jumping on the marketing train, but problems like that do fall under AI.