Seems totally possible that the limit is 0...
Yes, the thought crossed my mind too... But then I tried a private window and it opened, so maybe the other suggestion that the cookies are very long lived is right.
Readit Newsdr_zoidberg commented on AI isn't replacing jobs. AI spending is fastcompany.com/91435192/... · Posted by u/felineflock
dr_zoidberg commented on AI isn't replacing jobs. AI spending is fastcompany.com/91435192/... · Posted by u/felineflock
A little bit off topic: but I couldn't even start to read the article because "I reached my article limit" out of I site I never visited before... What are they using to determine how many articles I've read?
Opening in a private window solved the issue, however I'm pretty sure I don't regularly read anything on this site (maybe never was an overstatement?).
dr_zoidberg commented on Optimizing a 6502 image decoder, from 70 minutes to 1 minute colino.net/wordpress/en/a... · Posted by u/davikr
It is quite surreal to me that this was not the road taken. Optimizing software doesn't have the same potential as optimizing hardware but i'd say 1/70 is significant. If thousands of people would work on this indefinitely the time would drop to seconds. That code would also be completely incomprehensible. The argument that people should just buy a faster computer could just as easily have worked out the other way around, just write faster software. Going the hardware way gave us really really readable code which is great. The other direction however would have given us really really cheap devices. Receiving and sending a signal for [say] a chat application requires very little stuff. It would be next to impossible to add images, word suggestions or spell checkers. We could still bake mature applications onto dedicated chips. But until now those efforts went pretty much nowhere(?) I imagine one could quite easily bake a mail client or server, or a torrent client, irc, perhaps even a gui for windowed applications. Maybe an error console?
In the ~30 years I've used computers, they've become ~1,000,000 times faster. My daily experience with computers doesn't show it. There's someone out there who took the time to measure UI latency and has shown that, no only isn't it faster, it's actually slowed down. And yet, our hardware is 1,000,000 times faster...
Edit: this is the latency project I was thinking about https://danluu.com/input-lag/
Do any of those techniques use unmodified DRAM or are you talking about processor-in-memory approaches?
The abstract of OPs link mentions "Processing-Using-DRAM (PUD)" as exactly that, using off the shelf components. I do wonder how they achieve that, I guess fiddling with the controller in ways that are not standard but get the job (processing data in memory) done.
Edit: Oh and cpldcpu linked the ComputeDRAM paper that explains how to do it with off the shelf parts.
Do you have anything specific you're pointing to in those search results? Reading the excerpts, all but two are talking about malware on the analysis machine.
2012-09-13 SWGDE Model SOP for Computer Forensics V3-0 merely says to detect "Detect malware programs or artifacts".
2020-09-17 SWGDE Best Practices for Mobile Device Forensic Analysis_v1.0 seemed the most in depth, and it merely states:
> 9.4. Malware Detection Malicious software may exist on a mobile device which can be designed to obtain user credentials and information, promote advertisements and phishing links, remote access, collect ransom, and solicit unwanted network traffic. Forensic tools are not always equipped with antivirus and anti-malware to automatically detect malicious applets on a device. If the tools do have such capability, they do not typically run against an extraction without examiner interaction. If the examiner’s tools do not have antivirus/anti-malware capability, the examiner may need to manually detect malware through the use of common anti-virus software applications as well as signature, specification and behavioral-based analysis.
No, I just went to search if the topic is mentioned in guidelines (which it is, multiple times). I'd then expect a (good) expert to pick on those breadcrumbs and search on how to do that (if they don't have the skills already). If I were working on a computer, I'd try to find IOCs that point to an infection (or lack of evidence for it).
If there's a memory dump to work on, a more in-depth analysis can be done with Volatility on running processes, but it usually falls back on the expert having good skills on that kind of search (malfind tends to drop a lot of false positives).
But at least the guides gave a baseline/starting point that seems to be better than what was described. It's very difficult to prove a negative, so I'd also be careful with the wording, eg: "evidence of a malware infection was not found with these methods" instead of "there's no malware here".
I have no idea what arguments were actually made. But that concern was raised somewhere along the chain asking for my (informal technical) opinion.
It's obviously quite difficult to prove a negative in general, but the complete lack of any standard of care then presented as an "expert opinion" for the defense was astounding.
(FWIW this was a MS Windows machine, and I think the AV was just Windows Defender)
The lack of standards falls on the acting part. I ran a quick search and found that SWGDE best practices guides and documents do consider the case for the presence of malware on the digital evidence sources on many different scenarios [1]. Having an "expert" who is unaware of these guides is another story.
[1] https://www.swgde.org/?swp_form%5Bform_id%5D=1&swps=malware
Apparently, the cause of the long standing windows disk IO problem was discovered a month or so ago, and MS were said to be working on a fix.
Whether it'll be constrained to Win 11 is yet to be seen.
That's interesting. A project at work is affected by Windows slow open() calls (wrt to Linux/Mac) but we haven't found a strong solution rather than "avoid open() as much as you can".
raised 8% of $500,000
As of now 9%. I thought hitting the HN front page could have a much larger impact on this, but it seems that's about it this time.
I'm still using OpenCV 3 and am more than happy with it. Why does every library or application have to be blown up so much that it ends up being too big and complex for a voluntary open source project?
When I moved some projects from OpenCV 3 to 4 I got a nice speed up pretty much everywhere, some things no speed up at all and some others pretty big. I can't really remember the numbers, but at the moment it was a global 10 to 20% perf improvement just on updating a library.
Might want to check that. Also 4.something got SIFT as part of OpenCV (instead of living in the contrib module) because the patent expired and you can now use it for free.
As for blowing up with NN packages and such... I don't really use those parts, but if the NN module had easier support to run networks trained on popular frameworks I might've used it. Disclaimer: it's been quite a while since I last tried to use those parts, so maybe now the latest version has fantastic support and I'm talking nonsense.
dr_zoidberg commented on OpenAI’s ChatGPT Is the Whole Game Studio [video] youtube.com/watch?v=Zlgkz... · Posted by u/317070
Haha, your first Two Minute Papers video?
Indeed, it's their trademark style. It has also worked great for them.