Of course, any AV company could add a rule to their signature checking to undo the XOR if they were targeting the romhack.ing site, but it sounds like they aren't being targeted but just getting caught up in the dragnet.
Of course, any AV company could add a rule to their signature checking to undo the XOR if they were targeting the romhack.ing site, but it sounds like they aren't being targeted but just getting caught up in the dragnet.
If we project long term, could this mean that countries with the most capital to invest in AI and robotics (like the U.S.) could take back manufacturing dominance from countries with low wages (like China)?
The article left me with a nagging question: Doesn’t the designer of the codes deserve a share of the proceeds of the auction? He’s still alive according to Wikipedia. It sounds like the unsolved code is what makes the art especially valuable. Was the cryptographer’s effort a “work for hire”, so he doesn’t get anything from the sale?
And most other countries dump their garbage in these less fortunate countries for 'recycling'.
Can't really get mad at poor third world countries we have been using as dumpsters.
If you don't believe me or think this is hyperbole, no I'm being literal here. Almost everything you sort out into a recycling bin gets dumped in the the ocean somewhere far from you.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/31/waste-co...
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/03/rich-countri...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-pla...
https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/industrialised-countries-are...
But the articles don't say that. They say that a lot of plastic is unsuitable for recycling and is therefore incinerated or dumped, like into a landfill or a big dirty pile of trash on the ground. Not one of the articles said that the plastic was being dumped into the ocean.
One of the articles makes an observation about beaches and ocean around one Cambodian recycling town covered with plastic trash. Certainly a careless and dirty operation there. But even that article doesn't claim that their modus operandi is to dump it into the ocean.
If those journalists had any evidence that ocean dumping was the goal, or even if they suspected it, then that would have been the highlight of the article and they would have said so explicitly. It would be a newsworthy scoop even.
Since I'm not an ASI this isn't even scratching the surface of potential extinction vectors. Thinking you are safe because a Tesla bot is not literally in your living room is wishful thinking or simple naivety.
Indeed, robotic bodies aren't needed. An ASI could take over even if it remained 100% software by hiring or persuading humans to do whatever it needed to be done. It could bootstrap the process by first doing virtual tasks for money, then taking that money to hire humans to register an actual company with human shareholders and executives (who report to the ASI), which company does some lucrative business and hires many more people. Soon the ASI has a massive human enterprise to do whatever it directs them to do.
The ASI still needs humans for awhile but it's a route to a takeover while remaining entirely as running code.
Like songs that newborn songbirds know, migration routes that animals know without being shown, that a mother dog should break the amniotic sac to release the puppies inside, what body shapes should be considered more desirable for a mate out of an infinite variety of shapes.
It seems it implausible to me that all of these things can be encoded as chemical signalling; it seems to require much more complex encoding of information, pattern matching, templates, and/or memory.
There's a technical reason why "bitting up" (teeth up) should be the standard way to install pin tumbler locks. If the bitting faces up, the pins in the lock are directly above the bitting, and the springs are above the pins and not being compressed by the weight of the pins. If the lock is installed upside down such that the key goes in with bitting facing down, then the pins are sitting on top of the springs and may compress down over a period of years. A fatigued spring might not raise the pins to the shear line (the level needed for the lock cylinder to turn) and you'll be locked out.
It seems that most door installers and handymen don't follow any convention about up or down when installing locks.
I bet some readers are thinking that the developer that caused this tragedy retired with the millions he earned, maybe sailed his yacht to his Caribbean mansion. But the $300K FAANG salaries and multi-million stock options for senior developers represents the last decade or two. In the 1980's, developers were paid poorly and commanded little respect. The heroes in tech companies that sold expensive devices were the salesmen back then. The commission on the sale of a single Therac-25 probably exceeded the developer's salary.
All of the following would indicate that this developer, no matter how senior or capable, was still a low-paid schlub:
- It's Canada, so automatically 20% lower salaries than in the U.S. (AECL is in Canada, so it's a good bet that the developer was Canadian.)
- It's the 1980s, so pre-web, pre-smartphones, pre-Google/Amazon, and developers had little recognition and low demand.
- It's government, known to pay poorly for developers. (AECL is a government-owned corporation.)
- It's mostly embedded software. Even though embedded software can be incredibly complex and life-critical, it's the least visible, so it's among the lower paid areas of software engineering (even today).
For 1986, I would put his salary at $30-50K Canadian, or converted to U.S. dollars at that time would be $26-43K U.S., and inflation adjusted would be $78-129K U.S. today. And no stock options.