I only have one rule: I only contact an open source developer if I believe resolving the problem would make the product better unless I am willing to offer them reasonable money to do it.
Readit Newslmilcin commented on My boundaries as an open source developer joeldenning.com/?p=29... · Posted by u/cakeplease
lmilcin commented on The Beautiful Mind-Bending of Stanislaw Lem (2019) newyorker.com/culture/cul... · Posted by u/bryanrasmussen
In Polish, it's a mathematical tragic love poem. I've been studying Polish for 2 years, and I still don't fully understand all the wordplay here; it's pretty complicated.
Nieśmiały cybernetyk potężne ekstrema
Poznawał, kiedy grupy unimodularne
Cyberiady całkował w popołudnie parne,
Nie wiedząc, czy jest miłość, czy jeszcze jej nie ma.
Precz mi, precz, Laplasjany z wieczora do ranka,
I wersory wektorów z ranka do wieczora!
Bliżej, przeciwobrazy! Bliżej, bo już pora
Zredukować kochankę do objęć kochanka!
On drżenia wpółmetryczne, które jęk jednoczy,
Zmieni w grupy obrotów i sprzężenia zwrotne,
A takie kaskadowe, a takie zawrotne,
Że zwarciem zagrażają, idąc z oczu w oczy!
Ty, klaso transfinalna! Ty, silna wielkości!
Nieprzywiedlne continuum! Praukładzie biały!
Christoffela ze Stoksem oddam na wiek cały
Za pierwszą i ostatnią pochodną miłości.
Twych skalarnych przestrzeni wielolistne głębie
Ukaż uwikłanemu w Teoremat Ciała,
Cyberiado cyprysów, bimodalnie cała
W gradientach, rozmnożonych na loty gołębie!
O, nie dożył rozkoszy, kto tak bez siwizny
Ani w przestrzeni Weyla, ani Brouwera
Studium topologiczne uściskiem otwiera,
Badając Moebiusowi nie znane krzywizny!
O, wielopowłokowa uczuć komitanto,
Wiele trzeba cię cenić, ten się dowie tylko,
Kto takich parametrów przeczuwając fantom,
Ginie w nanosekundach, płonąc każdą chwilką!
Jak punkt, wchodzący w układ holonomiczności,
Pozbawiany współrzędnych zera asymptotą,
Tak w ostatniej projekcji, ostatnią pieszczotą
Żegnany - cybernetyk umiera z miłości.
Polish guy here. And Lem fan, too. Ask anything you want.
Question: would antiproton with antielectron orbiting around it be stable as normal hydrogen atom?
Did somebody made an experiment like that?
Yes and yes.
As far as we know anti-atoms (antihydrogen in this case) are as stable as normal atoms.
To the point where it creates interesting questions -- if antiatoms are exactly as normal atoms, why we have abundance of normal matter but not antimatter?
Tanks have always co-evolved against their threats. The reason top armor is weak is because the primary threat when the bulk of these designs were originated (60s/70s) was from other tanks or direct-fire guns. Precision indirect fire munitions weren't yet a major threat.
So, when you're rearchitecting a tank today, you're going to protect it against the now-dominant threats.
At its base, a tank is a propulsion system, a gun, and a set of survivability options.
The first two are always going to be relatively expensive, in quantity. So the last gets defined and scaled to meet the expected threat.
I guess you can imagine similar evolution that a century ago drove invention of aircraft carriers. When it became clear that battleships would become too large, too heavy and too expensive to meet their primary goal of dominating the sea around them.
Ie mobile platforms that are essentially defenceless on their own but carry large armament of drones and other electronic devices inside enemy territory that is meant to quickly take over surrounding space (surface and overhead) and do quick job of neutralising various threats like enemy personnel, drones, etc.
But I am not sure about that. Planes require a landing strip to start from and large hangars to store them and that drove the basic form of aircraft carrier.
There is no such limitation for electronic equipment and small drone carriers travelling on land. And I think, rather than presenting a single high value target to the enemy, it makes sense to have a lot of specialised units functioning as one through information systems that cannot be disabled with a single successful strike.
I don’t think the the utility of a tank is completely obviated. At a minimum, a heavy force needs them to assault and breach at speed under fire. The Russians are not exactly offering a tour de force in optimal support of their heavy armor. I will take their user error in favor of the good guys but don’t want to draw a broader lesson about the utility of the tank quite yet.
120mm cannon rounds are cheaper and more plentiful than guided missiles, which means a lot.
That said, it’s getting harder and harder to understand a scenario in which tanks can be employed successfully against a motivated, competent defender with plentiful ATGM and loitering munition stocks.
> I don’t think the the utility of a tank is completely obviated.
The whole point of tank, as the word suggests, is to be able to survive enemy fire.
With proliferation of easy to carry weapons that can pierce any tank it is largely relegated to being heavy, costly and fragile mobile cannon that needs a lot of support to stay alive. There are much better devices that can fill those roles.
You should no longer assume that you can ambush anything with your tanks -- with live overhead feed it is easy to spot any tanks encroaching on your position and place any antitank in the right spot.
And then you have drones that you can basically point and shoot any tank from.
I am pretty sure this is the last war where we see large number of tanks involved. Every country that is watching this is click spamming to buy as many drones as possible.
correction: literally 99.99999% of endpoints. they use password^W SMS authentication instead. no seriously, how is the only one good thing about X.509 (authentication via public key) the only unused part (to be fair, if anyone used it, wed have a whole new 10 episodes of vuln disclosures).
> correction: literally 99.99999% of endpoints.
You made up a number with no grounding in reality because of your bias due to being "general public".
For corporate services it is actually quite common to use client certificates and mutual auth. Also popular with VPNs.
You might not be aware of this because corporations do not want to deal with people who do not know or can be forced to know how to generate signing request.
This is different when you control both the service and the users of the service and you have something valuable to protect.
As an example, I worked with credit card terminals and these used mutual auth with properly managed client certificates.
You wouldn't call DOS on all terminals and ATMS "insignificant".
That's not how the TLS handshake works. The TLS server must be configured to request a certificate from the client in order for the client to know that it needs to send a client certificate to the server, and that server-side configuration is disabled for ~99%+ of endpoints.
TLS server implementations should be aborting the TLS connection for violating the TLS Handshake state machine if a client attempts to send a client certificate when it wasn't requested.
So while this bug affects both clients and servers, 100% of clients are parsing the server's TLS cert during the TLS handshake, but less than ~1% of servers are parsing a client's certificate during a handshake.
There is very little reason to DOS a client and a lot of reasons to attack servers.
There is a huge number of public facing services that implement mutual auth and all those are potentially vulnerable to DOS. While clients can just decide to not connect to a web service that causes their browser to malfunction (and why have you connected there in the first place?), services are usually not at liberty to ignore a client at this stage.
So yes, those servers that do request client certificate are targets and my point still stands that servers are much more affected than the clients.
What would be an affected client? You keep connecting to this infected website that causes your browser to die? Somebody embedded some tracking on their page that now points to an infected website? Everybody will just move on and it is hard to say you are very much affected by this problem.
Whereas if you are a service and you are affected you absolutely need to implement a fix.
This vulnerability affects parsing maliciously crafted certificates, so it will mostly affect clients. If your app is fetching data from a 3rd party and validating its certificate, it may be vulnerable, regardless of how you are fronting requests to your site.
> This vulnerability affects parsing maliciously crafted certificates, so it will mostly affect clients.
Actually, it is the opposite.
You seem to be unaware of the fact that servers do receive certificates from the clients which are then parsed.
Which is already mentioned in the advisory document:
"Thus vulnerable situations include:
- TLS clients consuming server certificates
- TLS servers consuming client certificates <---- here
- Hosting providers taking certificates or private keys from customers
- Certificate authorities parsing certification requests from subscribers
- Anything else which parses ASN.1 elliptic curve parameters"lmilcin commented on Tree cover loss – 2001-2020 globalforestwatch.org/map... · Posted by u/itstaken
I looked at the data from some places I knew very well for over 3 decades (like around where I grew up and are still visiting parents regularly) and it looks noisy and mostly incorrect, nothing like real tree cover change.
lmilcin commented on Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record nature.com/articles/d4158... · Posted by u/tambourine_man
I am not a "denier", I can recognize that anthropomorphic activities are changing the climate over time and we're not prepared to deal with that. But this sort of article annoys me because "on record" represents a nanosecond of geologic time. There are mountains, and plant fossils[1] under the ice at Antartica, so at some point in the geologic record there was little to no ice at all! And no humans likely either, which can happen again, but the relentless effort to drive anxiety of extinction through the human race just feels so non-helpful to me.
[1] https://oceanwide-expeditions.com/blog/the-ancient-fossil-fo...
I think the main problem here is not necessarily the actual extent of the ice but rather rapid change and how we, people, are dependant on particular climate in particular parts of our planet.
We are all dependant on very fragile balance of various mechanisms that we do not fully understand.
For example, European climate depends very much on the mass of warm water transported by Gulfstream. Europe would be basically north Canada if not for all that warm water and precipitation that comes with it. But we also know that this stream itself depends on the water cooling up north and sinking to complete the cycle. If the water can't cool the cycle will be broken and Europe may suddenly change the climate dramatically at an astonishing rate.
I am not worried about plant and animal life -- these will migrate or adapt. Nature has always found a way in the past.
What I am worried is human toll, masses of people affected by rapid climate change that are unable to fend for themselves.