On the contrary, this is exactly within the legal definition of insider trading. Polymarket is legally not considered gambling, it is commodity trading. The fact that this is a silly classification matters not at all to the legal situation.

I'm assuming that when they do one of those distribution plots of the output values (the ones that show clear patterns for pseudo random generators when run for long enough) they can prove that the distribution is totally uniform, and with time as a further axis, every attempt achieves that even distribution in a different sequence. That implies they can account for, or negate the impact of, every potential variable in the system.

Lava lamps (like Cloudflare actually use as part of their RNG, IIRC) might be just as good, but mathematically proving that could be a little more challenging, and there may be any number of corner case effects, such as the temperature on either side of the glass or minute variations in the heating coils, that cause an almost imperceptable bias towards the denser coloured fluid in the lamp being in certain parts of the lamp than others for short periods of time.

As to whether we need this, quite probably not. However, TFS does propose use as a kind of "master clock" to regulate other systems that would be less precise (or random, in this case) on their own. Whether that's more cost effective or practical than just combining multiple sources of randomness together to get a single output data stream I guess will be determined by any users that really, really, need a truly random data stream, and how the realities of a post-quantum world eventually play out. If you are in some kind of situation where an adversary can keep retrying at a suitable rate and only needs to predict/guess the next in sequence correctly once to "win", then perfect randomness over a sufficiently large search area is something you are going to be all over.

See my post above for a bit more detail, but this looks like it could be an SPF include failure. They have included "_spf-ssg-a.microsoft.com" in the SPF, which in turn includes "spf.protection.outlook.com". AFAIK, that's basically the Outlook.com webmail service, so quite possibly at least some, and possibly any, users of that service could impersonate "microsoftonline.com" and get an SPF pass.

If so then yeah, that's *totally* the kind of lack of attention to detail you tend to expect from Microsoft.

It was (and still is), but this is the problem that SPF was designed to solve (as opposed to being the FUSSP some made it out to be). If you have a critical domain that you use for sensitive stuff, like "microsoftonline.com", or any bank's domain, etc, then you need to be very specific on your SPF record's contents and make sure it has an "-all" in there to force a reject for failures, rather than the looser "~all" or (heaven forbid) "+all" which is really only intended for testing. Spammers know this, and seldom waste their time trying to spoof domains that will cause a failure; every domain I have setup SPF with "-all" on has seen Joe-Job bounces drop to zero pretty much overnight. DKIM works slightly differently, but adds another layer to this. Microsoft for sure knows this too and does indeed do both, but that doesn't mean you can't slip up and leave a hole somewhere.

So, taking a quick look, as things stand, the SPF record for "microsoftonline.com" is:

"v=spf1 ip4:216.32.180.228 include:spfa.microsoftonline.com include:spf-exacttarget.microsoftonline.com include:spf-msods.microsoftonline.com include:spf-mfa.microsoftonline.com include:_spf-ssg-a.microsoft.com -all"

They've got the "-all" in there, which is good, but also a whole bunch of "include" directives, including one that refers to ExactTarget a third party MSP, but the one that appears like it could possibly be the problem is the last one. That contains a further include, and in there is "spf.protection.outlook.com". All the includes do have "-all" but, AFAIK, that domain covers the outbound mail gateways for a least some parts of the Outlook.com webmail service, so if the spammers have been able to a suitable account using a server within one of the many IP ranges listed in that include that doesn't properly restrict the domains able to send their mail, then they are good to go.

Quoted from the article. More quotes:

> "Tesla accomplished this by building a tiny two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel, no pedals, and a sub-50 kWh battery pack."
> "That’s a legitimate engineering strategy for a robotaxi fleet vehicle. It’s not a fair comparison to a car you’d actually buy."

I'm slightly more willing to give a pass to Xorg applications because it's not a monolithic environment supposedly under the control of a corporate entity that should be able to enforce its own standards.

Eventually weâ(TM)ll figure out itâ(TM)s just electromagnetic forces running through plasmas.

Ugh, scientific orthodoxy is harder to crack than religion

of course you have to authenticate, but you run all of the software to administer it on a client, not sitting at the console. The console had only the most barebones capability, usually user management. The tools to administer ran on the client.

...it makes sense to have a headless server operating system when you're mostly running commodity spin-up/spin-down headless servers. Microsoft's server operating system was still largely based on the idea of running on a baremetal self-contained box, even though Microsoft servers had long, long since been used in the virtual machine space. If anything they're quite far behind the curve on this.

The Novell Netware model adapted to the VM era is what makes sense, where the tools don't require logging in to the server at all in order to administer the environment.

IBM is and has always been a services/consultant business, even when they made products.

I'm not so sure about the UI. The history of Microsoft and UI for the past 40 years is that they're happy to abandon their incumbent UI for different. We saw that with Windows 3.x to '95 and NT4, with Windows 98 and the integration of Spyglass Mosaic Internet Explorer, with the transition from Windows ME and Windows 2000 to Windows XP, the subsequent further transition from XP to Windows 7, and the rework from Windows 8.x to Windows 10. We even saw it with Windows 10 to Windows 11.

They change their UI because their customers don't see the OS being new/different unless they change their UI. If the UI looks the same then the average untrained end user doesn't know the difference and doesn't see a value in spending the money to upgrade.

I think it's more horses for courses, and can also vary considerably between what different demographics, both contemporary and historical, think of as "perfection". Hollywood is largely driven by white western males, so they naturally favour your "20% silicone", although that does seem to be undergoing a gradual change of late, but that's not the case for world cinema as a whole; you'll find far fewer wannabe Barbie Dolls in African cinema, for instance.

From a people portraiture perspective, especially candids, there is also a night and day difference between what a photographer would most typically want to shoot in a studio vs. on the street. The former is very much about some ideal of perfection, with hours spent on makeup and clothing the model(s) and setting up the lighting rigs, before the camera even gets turned on, whereas in the streets and fields, you are totally going to home in the people with the most interesting features, and those often tend to be very much the definition of imperfection. You are actively looking for the aged faces with more lines than a metro map, more piercings/tats than Vogue would likely ever consider acceptable, and anything else that really tells a story about the kind of life the viewer of the resultant image might imagine them to live. For the right images, there is absolutely value that can be measured in both clicks and dollars there too.

Also, why limit it to women implanting silicone to comply with some visual aspirational idea of perfection being forced on them by men (mostly), media, and entirely unrealistically proportioned dolls? Have you seen the lengths some men are going to as part of the "looksmaxxxing" fad? There's going to be a Darwin Award winner there real soon now, I'm sure.

Actually, I think it was Fred Schwed Jr. 86 years ago, but still just as relevant. In case it's not obvious from the fee, this is totally not about making YOU financially better off.

26 atomic worth - assuming 14 kT each means 364 kT. This is 423 GWH of total boom. The Utah hyper data center is projected at 9 GW. 24 hours gives 216 GWH - Throw in full heat load for thermal generation based on light-water nuclear generation and you are likely adding over 600 GWH of heat load in total. It's not at crazy as it sounds. Meaning that the total load thermal load could well exceed that of 26 smallish nuclear weapons.

This does not count the massive firestorms associated with the bombs of course. But after a short while nothing would be left to burn anyway, so I think it's fair to neglect the firestorm in the thermal load calculation.

I'm guessing the tank has enough positive pressure left internally that it can withstand the pressure exerted upon it by the upper stage's engine exhaust without collapsing until the upper stage is clear. If it deforms, then presumably it would not be able to be reused, but if it can withstand the pressure long enough just fine then that removes the need for some additional shielding, and the mass that entails.