All pilots should be listening to Guard, CTAF, and UNICOM frequencies, in addition to whatever ATC tells them to use to communicate with the tower.

If the autoland software is broadcasting its plans on those channels, it's almost impossible for another pilot to not know what's going on.

There's always a chance that a nearby aircraft could have radio problems, but the pilot of that plane should be exercising extreme caution. And you're supposed to set your transponder to a special value during radio failure, so everyone else knows that you might behave unpredictably. Presumably, the autolander could watch for this as well, although I have no idea if it does. Not every plane has a transponder, but the vast majority do.

Most of the hypothetical interactions are covered by existing regulations.

A vulnerability in an unsafe section of Rust is not surprising, and it was essentially inevitable that it would happen. That's the whole point of having safe vs unsafe modes.

There are still two really good reasons to use Rust widely:

1. Safe sections are typically the majority of the code, and they avoid problems without requiring and agonizing level of developer scrutiny and testing.
2. The requirement to mark unsafe sections makes it easier to identify problems and fix them. The maintainer probably knows exactly where to start looking for the problem when an issue is reported.

People acting like this is some kind of dunk on Rust are, quite frankly, embarrassing. Someone screwed up in the section flagged for "screwups are possible here". And then they fixed it.

The NSA offered suggestions during the development of DES that secured it against cryptanalysis attacks which were not known to the public. So, the US government helped at least once. They provided feedback to NIST during the selection process for AES algorithms too.

Decades later, that cryptanalysis method was discovered by people outside the NSA, and they put the pieces together. That's how we know about their contribution now.

We have no new information about their input into the selection of Rjindael for AES, and maybe we never will. The same applies for the selection of CRYSTALS-Kyber and CRYSTALS-Dilithium for FIPS-203 and -204. In both cases, NIST solicits input, but the NSA provides minimal technical details.

However, the government is not a singular entity with a singular purpose. It's possible for Congress or other agencies to have goals that do not align with the NSA's mandate.

Well, it's not impossible to ask. You'll just hear a lot of "No".

Quite a few companies run expensive software or hardware past the vendor's listed end-of-life date. Not everyone, possibly not a majority--but enough to cause problems. Vendors try to discourage this as much as possible.

The vendor doesn't want to provide software/firmware support forever. Money isn't an argument. If you're willing to pay for support, they know you'll pay regardless of whether the product is old or new. So they choose to make more money. They want you to buy a new product, and they will never change as long as enough companies do it.

We could pass e-waste reduction laws that require software updates and parts availability for a number of years. That could have a pronounced knock-on effect on security modernization, but it doesn't seem likely. At least, not in the US.

Digital signage and other professional displays are unlikely to be infected by this consumer-class nonsense.

It might cost a little extra to get displays designed for signage or medical imaging, but there will always be something in that space.

And a Faraday should be unnecessary. Removing the modem or snipping the antenna should disable cellular comms.

The concentration matters. It takes quite a bit of material to become chemically toxic, around half a gram.

If glacier melt is leeching it into the river system, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will absorb anywhere near that amount. The flow rate of large rivers is measured in thousands of cubic feet per second; that's a massive dilution of any single source of contamination.

The routine pollution--including both sewage and industrial waste--is almost certainly a much larger health risk.

The article is mostly fearmongering and science fluff. If India is unwilling to tackle the clear and present dangers of pollution in the Ganges, I don't see any justification to worry about a hypothetical threat.

So, to be clear, some of the managers will have:

1. Ongoing employment with government contractors and service providers
2. Financial ties to current and potential contract recipients
3. Close personal ties to contractors relevant to their field of employment

In normal circumstances, they would be precluded from long-term strategic planning, the creation of RFPs, and the evaluation or selection processes of contracts.

Are these guard rails in place? Color me skeptical.

I can accept a little bit of bias in the press because it's truly difficult to be completely neutral.

But when you take a technology that is known to hallucinate and publish content with it... you're a cheap entertainment/fiction slop shop. Even opinions are supposed to be based on facts, so any argument that "it's just podcasts" is absurd and wrong.

I don't know if anyone had much respect for the Washington Post lately, but it should be gone now. If they had tested it before going live, they would have known. But they didn't because they don't care about anything besides money.

That wasn't possible. He lost a ton of money right out of the gate---half in 2 months.

His later losses were failed attempts to win it back.

Dude thought he was smarter than Wall Street. Now he's broke and in prison.

Maybe there is opportunity in this frigid lands.

But that opportunity can't be realized until they thaw a bit.

A refugee that is improverished and seeking a comfortable life simply won't have the resources to flourish in unfriendly territory. Of all the people who could preemptively seize these "great opportunities", immigrants are the least capable in the absence of structured support.

As always, the opportunities will be exploited when it is economically feasible to do so. Hoarding land today for speculative gains in the future isn't an option for immigrants. Your idea is 100% rich people shit.

How, exactly, is it cheating?

If the legacy users abandon the X platform because they prefer the branding or "the vibes", then it was fundamentally a mistake on Musk's part to change those things. Recognizing what consumers really want... isn't that the ENTIRE POINT of capitalism?

People seem to be profoundly opposed to the changes that accompanied the rebranding from Twitter to X, but they seem to have trouble choosing a successor platform en masse. Perhaps reviving the Twitter marks will resolve the issue.

I don't use any of those platforms, so the outcome doesn't matter much to me. I am firmly in favor of liberating unused IP, regardless of whether it's copyrights, patents, or trademarks. If someone can use it, they should be able to.

Still a murderous regime, just getting into bed with more profitable partners. They are motivated by greed and power, nothing else. They are not better people all of sudden; they are making better friends to move up in the world.

If private citizens were investing, that would be different. But fuck the concept of a royal family, and fuck this royal family in particular.

I don't have a fundamental problem with Netflix ownership. I'm not a fan of the idea, but it's just typical corporate money-grubbing.

The government can impose requirements to ensure the availability of the WBD catalog, either in streaming form or via other media. The US has imposed requirements on large-scale mergers in the past, so it would not be unusual here.

As for Hollywood and the theater industry, I don't particularly care about the impact. I liked going to movies as a kid, but I rarely do it anymore. Home theater tech has gotten very good, so only 3D or IMAX can offer a truly memorable experience.

The Paramount offer has substantial backing from Saudi Arabi and other Gulf nations.

This is the same royal family that funds Wahhabist groups. While some people are quick to point out that "not all Muslims are extremists", this is specifically an extreme branch of Islam with deeply anti-American sentiment.

We do not need to entangle this country with such a grotesque regime. We do not need our economic success to line their pockets.

Honestly, Cambria or even Aptos would have been much better choices than Calibri, if we're looking at domestic or Microsoft fonts.

Serifs in Cambria avoid ambiguity between I and l, which is more important than normal---clarity is more valuable when dealing with foreign words and names. It was designed to be equally readable digitally and in print.

Aptos is sans-serif but has a hooked end on the lower-L. Not quite as readable in print IMO. I'm not a fan of grotesque fonts for print. Doesn't matter much to me, but might be important for official documents.