Even airbags probably don't require an RTOS, you just want to fire them as soon as possible, and a collision takes a long time in compute terms. An RTOS is designed for consistent timing, not fast timing, and the use cases are actually fairly narrow and not what most people expect.
There's nothing evil that's intrinsic to MBAs either.
I have an engineering degree and an MBA (and an IT degree). Before I did the MBA I had a lot of vague bad feelings about MBAs and the folk they produce. Now I have very specific bad feelings.
I believe degrees shape you as a person. Engineers are trained, through classes, group projects, and a consistent problem approach to see the world in a particular way. It has a lot of significant advantages, engineers work well together because of that shared worldview. Legal degrees shape people to view the world and approach problems in a particular way, not too dissimilar to engineers. Other degrees such IT/Software Engineering influence you but don't shape you as much.
MBA degrees shape people. The consistent theme through an MBA is optimization, optimizing a company to achieve profit. They talk about there being other things that are important, but then the assignment is to make you optimize X for profit. It appealed to my Engineer brain, how to create a system that achieves an optimal outcome. The basic knowledge they give you on accounting, finance, economics, statistics, operations, strategy, leadership, negotiation, hr etc. are all tools for your toolkit in crafting these systems, and the exercises are almost always focused on using those tools to maximise profit.
So when a person with MBA training sees something, a system, a rule change, an emerging problem, anything... The training kicks in, how does this thing impact maximising profit, using the perspectives and tools available, how do I adjust my systems?
The process shapes someone, it doesn't rebuild them, so their underlying beliefs and drives are still intact. The training can also easily be reoriented to optimise other systems. But an MBA also self selects for people who are more likely to be profit focussed, it is a business degree, and then it groups them together to influence each other.
MBAs are trained to optimise capitalism, exploit its flaws, and extract maximum value. I don't think that is intrinsically evil, but it certainly isn't intrinsically good.
Another issue which is a significant problem for consumers is the wildly clashing life spans of smart devices.
Smart device interfaces are essentially tablets, similar hardware and technology. Most tablets aren't expected to last more than three years, developers issue a new product each year. Issues such as a lack of security updates and software incompatibilities rapidly increase after three years.
Fridges typically last about ten years, older ones are common but generally a replacement is suggested at the ten year mark.
Users are thus stuck. Either they cycle their smart fridge every three years, significantly increasing the cost. Or they let the smart aspect atrophy, after ten years the smart portion is almost certainly non-functional and they just have an ugly and expensive fridge. Neither solution leads to happy consumers.
This was an attack by someone with commit privileges in the project. Would MSFT magically prevent something like that? I am fascinated to find out how.
Fair, but Microsoft actually has a good idea of the real identity of people committing to Microsoft code. Various forms of ID, background checks etc. Jia Tan (JiaT75) is just a name with no background, nobody seems to know who they are, what they look like, where they live, or who pays their salary.
Debian requires verified real identities to become a developer, but I'm not aware of other non-commercial projects that do. Maybe identity verification should become the norm.
I don't think the sharing customer information is necessarily required.
For a simple algorithm: inputs -> algorithm -> outputs
If everyone is using the same algorithm, and the algorithm is fed the same set of inputs then everyone will get the same output.
That has the practical effect of aligning everyone's price and removing real competition from the market.
The legalities seem far messier. Directly cooperating to set prices is clearly collusion. The DOJ seems to be arguing that cooperating to use the same algorithm in order to get the same prices is also collusion, which seems reasonable. The messy part is the cooperating, was Rainmaker deliberately chosen because they knew the other hotels used it and adopting it would lead to this outcome? And is that illegal cooperating, or legal mimicking? The smoking gun would be an agreement between the hotels to all adopt the algorithm for this specific reason, which would be fascinating to see.
This evil cloud exploitation argument rests on two assumptions, which aren't true in Redis' case.
1. That the company created the software and thus has a moral right to profit from it. That's not true in this case, Redis was created by Salvatore Sanfilippo. The company Garantia Data provided a cloud hosted version of Redis. Garantia Data then employed Salvatore and changed their name to Redis Labs, apparently Salvatore objected to them changing the company name to Redis. Salvatore then left the company, leaving stewardship of the Redis project to the company, and Redis Labs renamed themselves to Redis. The Redis company have unquestionably invested significantly in the Redis code base, but they aren't the initial creators or the sole contributors, there are multiple external members of the core development team including staff from Alibaba and Amazon.
2. That Amazon is distributing Redis for a profit but not contributing back to the community, freeloading off the work of others. That is demonstrably not true here, Amazon has staff working full time on Redis, they have contributed significant features, Amazon staff are on the Redis core development team (or were, until the license change). As far as I can see Amazon has been a positive contributing member of the Redis community, doing exactly what many people have previously argued they should be doing.
I'm not trying to pretend that AWS has been perfect here, but they also don't seem to be the obvious bad guys either. What they are doing looks the same as what Garantia Data did, providing a cloud hosted version of the product that they didn't create but do significantly contribute back to. Redis (company) also has a history of behaving badly, they introduced Redis Modules with a non-opensource licence, then spent years complaining that AWS Elasticache was not "feature complete" or compatible because they didn't support the Modules that had been explicitly licenced so that AWS couldn't use them.
I have high hopes for the Valkey fork by the Linux Foundation, the product direction will probably be improved out of the control of the Redis company. Hopefully in the future they can work with the contributions from the cloud hosting company formally known as Garantia Data.
Its not clear to me why people would choose to invest in the United States instead of emerging markets if the emerging markets provide better opportunities for growth....
It's complex of course, one of the big reasons is the weaker institutions in emerging markets. There's corruption, bribes, weaker and uncertain legal systems, extensive byzantine bureaucracy, and significant political risk. Logistical institutions are also weaker, transportation infrastructure is poor, logistical providers (truck companies) often don't exist or aren't at sufficient scale. Capital markets are weak, labor is typically cheaper but hard to gauge the quality of, and raw materials are often of varying quantity. These factors intersect too, if your raw material provider messes you around then you may not have the expected legal recourse to fix the problem.
All these institutional issues add expenses, drag growth and create significant amounts of uncertainty. There are reasons why large companies are happy to source from emerging markets but very reluctant to significantly establish or invest there.
The fires are the solution, not the problem.
If you have an oil well or processing facility which produces Methane as a waste product you have three options, vent it, flare it (burn it), or capture compress and store/sell it. The third is ideal but very expensive, particularly at smaller scale facilities. Flaring is cheap, but looks bad, you get people circulating photos with fields of venting fires. Venting just dumps the gas into the atmosphere, which is terrible for the globe, but cheap, invisible and hard to detect without systems like the satellites being launched.
Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have government policies banning or limiting flaring and venting, partly due to the negative attention from the photos. Which has caused the companies involved to stop flaring, but they switched to venting.
Flaring releases CO2, which isn't fantastic, but it is much better than venting the methane. One of the biggest immediate changes we could do for climate change is to encourage Turkmenistan to light the flares back up while a longer term solution is worked on.
One of the stated goals for the satellite systems (there's a few being launched) is to drive negative attention to the methane venters, like the flaring photos did. A longer term option being discussed by a number of groups is pricing based on the atmospheric damage a producer does. Which would increase the price of oil from countries and companies which are doing the wrong thing as a way of incentivizing change. However I'm skeptical of the groups achieving the level of global agreement to make a plan like that work.
(The Darvaza gates of hell pit fire looks spectacular, but isn't a significant greenhouse gas emitter, especially not compared to the nearby oil wells. It was also deliberately lit to flare off the gas.)
NASA doesn't seem to understand its culpability in the statement they released blaming the contractor for not knowing the requirements.
"Understanding" not knowing. The requirements were written down and agreed to. The culpability is entirely on Maxar for not having the expertise to understand what they were committing to and not recognizing or caring that the didn't know what they were doing.
Do you see what they are doing here? A power grab. It used to be that copyright covered expression while ideas were free to reuse. Now they want to close off any formulation of an idea as copyright infringement. They want to own all possible formulations of an idea. Is that copyright anymore, or is it more like patents or trademarks?
This has actually always been the case. There's a reason why clean room techniques are used to reimplement code. If you have seen the original copyright work and produce something that is the same or very similar then it is immediately suspect of copyright infringement. Then the case goes through the courts to argue how different it is, cases on code have gone either way.
That's what has happened here. The AI was fed the original copyright work. It produces something which is the same or very similar. Now the courts have to decide how different it is and if infringement occured.
This isn't a new power grab.
Liberal feminists such as JK Rowling are regularly getting censored
Really? When has JK Rowling been censored?
She's been criticised, a lot. But her articles are still online, her tweets are still online (except for the few she says she deleted herself), and there are huge numbers of articles detailing and quoting everything she's said for everyone to read.
How has JK Rowling been censored?
Yes, it is irresponsible how car companies, Hyundai in particular, have deployed this technology without even rudimentary adversarial testing.
The solution isn't even that hard: The key fob just has to be designed so it doesn't send the same code each time.
There are several ways to do this:
1. Add a receiver so communication is two-way. The key fob sends a code. The car answers with a challenge. The key fob then hashes the challenge with a hidden code and sends it back. The vehicle then verifies the hash and unlocks.
2. Add a few bytes of memory. So, an internal code is incremented each time the button on the fob is pushed. This internal code is added to the hidden hash code, so a different code is transmitted each time. The car verifies the code, including a look-ahead in case the button was pushed without the car receiving it.
If designed in, either solution costs less than $1, but will be much more expensive to add to current cars and key fobs.
You clearly haven't stopped and looked at how the attacks work. For the first level attack, which has been around for years, they carry an amplifier which magnifies the signals in both directions.
The communication is two way, the car does talk to the real remote, it's just sitting on the kitchen bench instead of being in the vicinity of the car. Both of your suggestions won't work to address this attack, it doesn't matter how complex you make the encryption, hashes etc. none of it is going to help. The fix has to be hardware based, either timing or using a non-RF communication method such as electromagnetic coupling.
The limit to the amplifier attack is that you can't travel very far with the car. You can rummage through the car easily but it will lose signal and stop as you drive down the road.
The newer attack uses an emulator to mimic the original key to allow them to drive away.
The attacked vehicles use a hardware chip that implements the TI DST80 cipher, this is an implementation of the widely used Feistel cipher and it includes a key rotation system similar to the one you proposed. There is an issue with the implementation that allows side channel attacks, however the true implementation issue is that the car companies didn't use the full key range when programming the chips. The emulators almost certainly use a lookup table which monitors the amplified signal for a few rounds to determine which encryption key is in use for the car in question, this allows very rapid cloning of the key.
The fix for this is just for the car companies to properly generate an encryption key using the full range of bits, that will make the space too large for a lookup table and prevent the attack. Car companies have almost certainly done this, and the reprogramming recall is probably the dealers reprograming the car and fobs to use a new key that sits on the full range.
Of course this just addresses the existing attacks, new ones could be developed. Possibly the attack drops a device in the bushes near the house that relays the radio signal across the mobile phone network to a device the attacker carries in the car. Sadly the nature of RF makes the possibilities almost endless, car companies will just be attempting to make the difficulty of the attack high enough to make it no longer profitable for the thieves. Much like immobilizer equipped vehicles are stealable but the effort makes it typically not worthwhile.
So, that would mean Reddit spent approximately $895 Million last year. On what?
The best bit of a public or IPO company is that you can actually see, they provide a summary on page 18 of the prospectus.
All numbers are thousands of USD.
Revenue $ 804,029
Cost of revenue 111,011
Research and development 438,346
Sales and marketing 230,175
General and administrative 164,658
Total costs and expenses 944,190
Income (loss) from operations (140,161)
Other income (expense), net 53,138
You can also see the impact of the moderator purge and blackout, user engagement was mostly unchanged but revenue per user dropped by 22%. The revenue per user still hasn't fully recovered.
The other income column here is worth commenting on, $53M in 2023 compared to $10M in 2022 providing them a significant 6.5% revenue bump, it cut their headline net loss figure by 1/3rd. This was caused by them investing $804M in 2022 lining up for a sale of $1.3B of securities in 2023. This seems suspicious and potentially a bit of financial manipulation to make the company figures look better at a glance.
The amount of disconnect in the US, esp. among the right (but also the left) between perceptions and measurable reality in a wide range of things has me deeply concerned. Like, for example, a recent survey showed that 60% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats believed that unemployment was nearly at a 50-year high (it's actually at a nearly 50 year low)....
The data you quote shows that the perception is wrong in both groups, to almost the same amount. And perception on crime is notoriously detached from reality, in all demographics in all first world countries.
Why force this into a political left/right characterization?
I feel like the logic will be hidden in a machine learning model - the authors don't even understand.
If you are being convicted based on the use of a system that nobody understands and nobody can prove works... maybe that's a problem.
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde
