That’s what lesuorac is saying. The SEC found he violated the rules for a publicly traded company... And then could do absolutely nothing about it to enforce the rules.
594 karma · joined September 12, 2023
As an example - if there's a weakness that affects 50% of keys (replace with whatever hypothetical number), NSA can make sure it doesn't use those affected keys but still retain the ability to decrypt 50% of everyone else's communications. And using the entropy analysis from this post, that would require 1 bit hidden in the parameters which is clearly within the entropy budget.
Isn’t the problem (having only read a little about the controversy) that the non-hybrid appears to be strictly worse, except for the (~10%) decrease in transmission size; and that no one has articulated why that’s a desirable tradeoff?
On the face of it, I don’t see a problem with the tradeoff (both ways, that is) choice existing. I expect smarter people than me to have reasons one way or the other but I haven’t seen a reason for saving bandwidth that could articulate the concrete use case that it makes a difference.
> There is no backdoor in ML-KEM, and I can prove it. For something to be a backdoor, specifically a “Nobody but us backdoor” (NOBUS), you need some way to ensure that nobody else can exploit it, otherwise it is not a backdoor, but a broken algorithm
Isn’t a broken algorithm also a valid thing for NSA/whoever to want?
Them saying they want to use it themselves doesn’t actually mean much?
> Years are calculated backwards
How did that insight come about?
Why temporarily?
IFR was designed long before GPS and for the most part, GPS has been shoehorned into the “old” system. VORs around the country are still “primary” for navigations; airways are still primarily defined around VOR radials; and approach plates to large airports have plenty of non-GPS precision approaches. (Some smaller GA-only airfields that recently got IFR approaches might be WAAS/GPS only).
Losing GPS might increase workload for some sectors (en route sectors who won’t be able to clear aircraft direct to waypoints) but not likely TRACON who are vectoring aircraft on pre-defined approach plates.
If you pick a random commercial flight on your favourite flight tracker and check it’s route, 99% of the waypoints on it are defined as VOR intersections, not GPS coordinates. (The remaining 1% are likely en-route waypoints and not in the departure/approach area).
Also, the instrument proficiency requirements for pilots require multiple approach types to be logged every 6 months so they are definitely capable of non-GPS approaches.
That sounds even more terrifying than the original chat control! How is this the back door “compromise”?
It’s a long parable to explain:
> FINAL THOUGHT: Somewhere in Brussels, right now, someone is discovering that "effective oversight" means nothing without the technical ability to enforce it. This story is for them
14 hour flights from Australia to the US west coast already have 3 crew rotations.
Is "technology licensing company" a euphemism for patent troll? Or are there legitimate companies that do only/primarily technology licensing?
The userspace vs. system classification doesn’t seem to have nice answers to configuring system components but still having the benefit of the immutable district; it’s all or nothing
Brave and all the other browsers based on Chromium have said that they can only keep support for Manifest V2 extensions as long as support remains in Chromium; meaning they don't have the ability to maintain it themselves and are at the mercy of upstream.
[0] https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/new-light-shed-on-australias...
> To be very honest here, you risk having KeePassXC blocked by relying parties
to not cast the author in a bad light?
They are straight up threatening a well regarded open source password manager for implementing portability for passkeys.
How would one find out information about the process, find a lawyer etc. without internet access?
> Or at least put the gaming in an isolated Windows VM with GPU passthrough
That’s a guaranteed ban by most anticheats
Well if your working in a standards development organisation then your manager probably should.
It looks like (in the US at least) standards development organisations have to have (and follow) very robust transparency processes to not be default-liable for individual decisions.
(Unlike most organisations, such as where where you and your manager from your scenario come from)
If the software was originally written in C/C++ based on some performance reasons (avoiding GC/being in control of boxing/being in control of when to use vtables etc.) then what would be more reasonable options?
> Fully automatic memory-managed languages should be considered first.
Those languages have existed for 20+ years so if they were ruled out as part of the original decision making then they probably still aren't applicable.
> [or] all aliens working for a company,
> or all aliens working in an industry
I think it very explicitly allows that case
How do you define “need” for extra features? C and C++ can fundamentally both do the same thing so if you’re going to write C style C++, why not just write C and avoid all of C++’s foot guns?