nebulous1

Blackmail to gain what? Speedy update to the site? The OP is going to disclose the vulnerability. The only matter up for debate is the timing.

I read that entire article thinking it said driving instructor. Doesn't really change anything but it makes so much more sense that he's a part time diving instructor.

Their Oura comparison really didn't sit well with me because of that. The device clearly uses a fraction of the power that the Oura is using. If it had a rechargeable battery you would not have to charge it that frequently.

That lifespan is based on the user recording for 12 to 15 hours over those two years. It's a $100 device that can record 12 hours of audio and then you throw it away. You could expend the battery on your first day by holding down the button.

Honestly I can see a niche use but this device strikes me as quite weird and I'm not sure why it isn't a button on their new watch.

You'll need to trawl through the actual commits it appears: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/commits/main/

How come?

> "ah, you hesitated" no more so than on every single other question.

It was longer. I think almost twice as long. Took about 2 seconds to respond generally, 4 seconds for that one.

The issue with most of what you're saying here is that all of that works the way it does because it can, not because it has to. Code libraries, for example, may essentially prohibit what is being requested by SKG because they can. However, if they couldn't then they wouldn't. The companies selling the libraries aren't going to simply shut up shop.

Which is just to say, if there's money to be made then businesses will do so within the regulatory framework.

I agree, but in this banking apps (around me) use the Integrity API anyway.

> showdead enabled

Thanks, I didn't know this was something we could turn off. Although it does feel like they could just default to collapsed too.

Right. The title seemed to be suggesting that the Nix way of doing things might have detected the backdoor. It's actually intending to suggest ways that Nix could be changed in order to detect the backdoor.

$100 profit on a $150 watch would be crazy. Rest of the post seems made up too. I don't know where these numbers are coming from. I'm genuinely confused.

Thanks!

So, in the situation in the comment OP, with sychronized writes and and unsynchronized reads, what is this "happens before" stipulation prohibiting?

Thanks. So the structure in the OP is an array of uint32s.

> that unsynchronized reads of a uint64 will return some previous valid write, it doesn't guarantee anything about which value is returned

Your the second person saying this, so is my interpretation that this is dissallowed by the part that you quoted incorrect?

> must observe some write w such that r does not happen before w and there is no write w' such that w happens before w' and w' happens before r

edit: somebody is answering this below by the way

I don't disagree, but that's not the claim I was replying to. The question I was asking about was

> I understand the need for correct lock-free impls: Given OP's description, simply avoiding read mutexes can't be the way to go about it?

I did note that the documentation recommends a lock.

> read the first value ever set to the variable for the entire lifetime of the program

That is not my reading of the current memory model? It seems to specifically prohibit this behaviour in requirement 3:

> 2. w does not happen before any other write w' (to x) that happens before r.

I don't use Go.

https://go.dev/ref/mem

If I'm reading this correctly, they are recommending a lock in this situation. However, they are saying the implementations has two options, either raise an error reporting the race (if the implementation is told to do so), or, because the value being read is not larger than a machine word, reply to the read with a correct value from a previous write. If true then it cannot reply with corrupted data.

Would "key-value" not have a place in the description?

This application may be very capable, but I agree with the person saying that its use-case isn't clear on the home page, you have to go deeper into the docs. "Smarter than a database" also seems kind of debatable.

That's the one. Nifty little program.

The name gave me a flashback to Borland Sidekick

crunchbase says 500-1000 employees.

They sold 25% of their shares in a 2019 IPO that valued the company at $716m

Market cap is about $3.5b now

That's great! Thanks for the info.

Yeah, I saw that there is something called rebble, which is great. I'm just wondering whether the company did anything to support this before selling. I'm not an open source absolutist, but I really hate the trend towards obsoleting hardware because a company pulls support. Community stepping in is great, but it's not always possible without company support.

How were users left when pebble got sold? It's a little disappointing to read that the OS wasn't already open source. Did they provide any information that could allow other teams recreate services or update the firmware or were people left to fend for themselves?

But they say what they do on their product page. They provide a solution.

There was a little more information in that reddit thread. Of the three difficulty tiers, 25% are T1 (easiest) and 50% are T2. Of the five public problems that the author looked at, two were T1 and two were T2. Glazer on reddit described T1 as "IMO/undergraduate problems", but the article author says that they don't consider them to be undergraduate problems. So the LLM is already doing what the author says they would be surprised about.

Also Glazer seemed to regret calling T1 "IMO/undergraduate", and not only because of the disparity between IMO and typical undergraduate. He said that "We bump problems down a tier if we feel the difficulty comes too heavily from applying a major result, even in an advanced field, as a black box, since that makes a problem vulnerable to naive attacks from models"

Also, all of the problems shows to Tao were T3

Overall I agree, the entire match seemed to be Ding defending. Gukesh kind of failed to capitalise the whole way through though.

wrt the time, this is kind of a bread and butter endgame. Ding shouldn't have blundered here with 10 minutes on the clock. Highly unlikely he would have blundered this two years ago.

I don't think he was arguing that things weren't more secure after the export controls were dropped. I feel like that's why he was arguing to drop them at the time. He's just saying that all the signs point to Amazon/internet commerce becoming a behemoth either way. So we'd just end up in the same situation wrt what the talk sees as the current state of things, but with compromised cryptography.

> Aside from everything else, I don't understand what Whittaker's point was; she seemed to ultimately be advocating for something, but I can't understand what, exactly.

The whole talk felt like it was gearing up to making a point but then it ended. It turned out that the point was to blame our current situation on the "sins of the 90s". To be fair, it was in the title all along so I'm not sure why I was expecting otherwise.

Here is the line, it is written in K. K is a language created by the same person (Arthur Whitney) based on APL and Scheme.

  x(,/{@[x;y;]'(!10)^x*|/p[;y]=p,:,3/:-3!p:!9 9}')/&~*x