Same here. It was funny to see someone set their green bin out at the street next to all the huge bins.

Does anyone know if the Apple M4 can be designed in such a way that private cryptographic keys can no longer be stolen via side channel timing attacks?

Not necessarily. He's clearly dodging around some kind of issue with posting the NYC bond, other the quite reasonable not wanting to tie up cash or liquidate assets he probably won't be able to recover if he should prevail on appeal, because it doesn't all need to come from one place, or bond provider. He can use a combination of cash, stocks, and other assets, spread across multiple bond providers to get to the total. That almost certainly results in a higher total amount lost in fees, but it's better than nothing. The DWAC stock could be used as collateral, to be returned as stock if he prevails, and only used to make up a shortfall of anything else he can use - cash, stocks, assets, whatever, with other bond providers to get to the total.

Besides, DWAC is mostly financed by Trump backers and a lot of the stock will probably be sold to other true believers. Anyone else buying in at IPO is almost certainly hoping the price will immediately spike so they can quickly bail and make a truck load of cash while leaving someone else holding the bag, just like any other IPO. Given that, Trump could only hold one share, and the chances are still pretty reasonable that if he said "Jump!" most of the board and the stockholders are going to ask "How high?"

Of course it's a grift; many of the backers of DWAC are also quite vocal Trump supporters, and the prospective market for this IPO - and potential bagholders if/when it all goes south - is almost certainly the MAGA crowd, and especially Truth Social users. The over valuation is quite likely driven in part by that backing of Trump and in part that the hope that general population of the MAGA movement will somehow be tapped for a steady stream of actual cash, rather than the over-inflated paper value of the stock, and that's where the profit comes from even if the stock listing drops into the pinksheets before they can dump it. I guess you could also see this as a way to indirectly support his current political aspirations and even help with the mounting legal bills too.

Interesting point on the later bit. Apparently, DWAC shareholders cannot divest shares until at least six months after the IPO, unless there's an exemption. Trump will own more than half the stock and needs a lot of cash to appeal the NYC court ruling much sooner than that. There's a theory I saw that Trump can't use his properties as a bond for the appeal because the issuing insurer(s) would want an independant valuation, which would then be shared with the court - essentially not only confirming his guilt if he has indeed over-inflated their value, but by exactly how much. Cashing out a lot of his Truth Social stock ASAP would get him out of that problem, so watch this space on that exemption. If granted, that'll tell you all you need to know about how above board all this is, assuming the ticker isn't already enough for you.

Bingo. I've sent this feedback to them multiple times as well. It's completely asinine what they are doing, all in the name of coercing people to enable watch history. They could at least show recent videos from the subscriptions list on the homepage.

Even those with a passing belief in the Area 51 Alien Conspiracy are definitely not going to take this as total and gospel truth, to be certain, but this is also a lot more plausible than "swamp gas and weather balloons". Most of the depictions of UFOs from the 60s onwards are of wedge shaped objects, rather than the "flying saucers" of early SciFi, and usually based on sightings by rural USians - exactly the kind of low-population density areas you're going to be running test flights of classified aircraft over.

The Avro Vulcan delta-wing bomber was already a design concept by the late 40s and first flew in the early 50s, the Lockheed A-12 (the CIA's precursor to the SR-71 Blackbird/Habu) first flew in 1963, and they were followed by the SR-71, F-117A Nighthawk, and B2 Spirit, and various other X-planes like the X-47B, mostly with swept, full-delta, or other unusual wing configurations, as well as the almost impossible seeming manouvering capabilities of vectored thrust aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. Compare those with the profiles and manouvering abilities from UFO sightings years, and in some cases decades, after they first officially flew, and it's extremely likely that most of the sightings were, in fact, just next gen aircraft or their prototypes under test, especially when things like the extreme operating altitudes some of them reach are taken into account.

That might not explain things like the "Tic-Tac" just yet, but with next gen piloted and autonamous aircraft probably still under wraps, I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of the current UFO sightings turn out to have a remarkably similar profile to next gen fighter aircraft/drones or hypersonic payload delivery systems when they eventually get declassified.

I'll disagree a little bit: we have heavy lift rockets bringing mass to orbit at a greater rate than any time in history and new larger and more efficient rockets on the cusp of being brought to use, with next generations planned for the future. Space launch technology -- the actual raw launching of mass to orbit, where it can be useful -- has advanced. And mass to orbit means more fuel -- if we really wanted to get something out there faster.

And that's where our statements arrive at the same conclusion: there's little need to do anything but super efficient deep space probes. While I can quibble with your implied assertion about newer technology not making a difference in ability, in a practical sense given our funding of deep space research, the big tech upgrade has been to data collection devices and communication. We'll have to have way cheaper lift capability before extra fuel to cut time off a project makes any kind of sense. But it is now at least plausible as an option.

(Also, this appears to be the only thread that isn't making Trek or Aliens jokes)

Oh great, now visits to the bank will be like this.

Absolutely no usage cases for where you don't want to share the contents of the screen with others, although a simple snap-on cover would solve that and give you at least the option of sharing the screen (and allow for an after-market in replacement/custom cover designs). As long as you don't include text on what you're sharing, because it's going to be mirror writing from one side or the other depending on how you draw the screen, you're good.

Here's a possible usage case though. Assuming a traditional clamshell design with a slim base and keyboard with illuminated key lettering, fold the screen flat against the keyboard, turn off the keyboard LEDs, and you've got a conventional, if slightly bulky, tablet without the need for a complicated and fragile hinge that lets you turn the screen through 180deg like current hybrids. If the screen is touch sensitive and it includes a stylus, I can see that might appeal to at least some graphic artists or people looking to do some light work or reading while they're commuting, yet still have a traditional laptop available once they arrive.

Maybe Slashdot will go public someday and reward us low-UID users with shares! We'll be able to buy all the hot grits, Beowulf clusters, and neck beard care supplies we can imagine! Maybe then they'll also hire someone to add Unicode support, post-submit comment editing, and start checking article submissions for dupes. Okay, okay, I was just kidding with that last sentence.

Here is a fact-checked article that would seem to disagree with your talking point.

So if corporations are people, and embryos are children, does that mean that corporations can have children if they purchase unused embryos from IVF clinics?

Or almost any publication reporting on finance, for that matter. Take a look at the "News" section on Google or Yahoo! finance pages for a few stocks, indexes, or (for a real laugh at the chutzpah of blatently biased reporting) crypto tokens; there's occassionally some interesting stories about the stock/index/whatever you're looking at, but mostly they're full of shitty articles that are almost always trying to push the same buttons as those TFS is accusing CNBC of, or are outright hyperbole that I suspect is almost certainly produced by some second rate GPT type tool given how similar the summaries read. Articles by Forbes on BitCoin are particularly laughable in that respect; the one-line strap you see on Google/Yahoo is almost always claiming some multi-trillion dollar "earthquake" that's several times larger than total market cap of all crypto tokens, let alone BTC. They're not targetting people with above average IQs or levels common sense here, that's for sure!

IMHO, it's all utter crap, produced either because they put some GPT to work and are not checking the output (or don't care that it sucks), and/or is deliberately designed to generate clicks and FOMO. In some cases, I suspect it may even be going one step further and trying to help pump the price and sucker rubes in so those pulling the strings can boost their profits when they sell to those rubes looking to get in on the action before they miss out.

This. I recall a Flash video from back in the day that showed the relative scale of things in the universe, from the largest known cosmic structures like galaxy clusters, right down through macroscopic/human scale stuff, to the smallest known sub-atomic particles. All that was pretty well populated, with known objects present at almost every order of magnitude. However, if you continued zooming in there was then... nothing. Many, many orders of magnitude with nothing known at that scale until you arrived at the Planck length and hypothetical "fabric of the universe" type stuff.

It seems highly unlikely there's absolutely nothing there, but the kind of equipment we'd need to explore that far down into the foundations of the universe is way, way, beyond anything we might even dream of today. While this proposed collider might get us a few more orders of magnitude down from the LHC, there is still clearly a *looong* way down still to go beyond it's capabilities. You've got to start somewhere though, and that knowledge can then drive the designs for the next generation. Or maybe we could just cut to the chase and sub-contract the construction job out to the Magratheans?

So could the writers of Star Trek: The Next Generation , three decades ago...