> Intel Arc tried shaking up the entry level (retailers spit on that MSRP though) but sadly didn’t make that big of a splash
The Intel Arc B60 probably would have made a splash if they had actually produced any of the damn things. 24GB vram for low prices would have been huge for the AI crowd, and there was a lot of excitement and then Intel just didn't offer them for sale.
The company is too screwed up to take advantage of any opportunities.
While interesting, the headline naturally overstates the result. They leave out that this occurs if you feed the output back into the input hundreds or thousands of times. Nothing I see here suggests that it means anything for a single generation from a prompt.
I believe you misread. My reading is that Gemini 3 gave a good result on a certain input, so they gave the same input to this model and the result was poor.
This argument isn't _that_ compelling because: send today's tech back a century, use that as your aliens in case 'c'. They would 100% be able to see that tech. They wouldn't know what the hell they're looking at, or be able to do much about it, but they'd see it.
If we’re talking about aircraft, the combination of modern radar mitigation and modern sensor packages would allow a time traveling plane or drone to be effectively invisible in 1925.
Sure they’re not going to bend light around themselves, but they can fly outside of visual range and 1925 radar technology won’t stand a chance of detecting them.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but aren't they still going to be loud as fuck, and quite visible? How high do you need to be before you're not audible or visible? I guess go at night, sure, but...isn't all that crap more about being hard to precisely target than it is about being literally undetected?
Not a stupid question at all. I’m not sure about piloted aircraft, but drones currently operate at altitudes where they can’t be seen or heard from the ground.
It depends where you send it / why. There's lots of places you can send it where there's just nobody to see it. We still occasionally find an uncontacted tribes out there after all, so if someone didn't want to be seen (or even just seen in a place full of cameras), it would be trivial.
Sending the tech from 100 years in the future to today is not directly comparable to sending today's tech 100 years back.
By 2125, military aircraft will probably be silent, able to rapidly ascend to 100,000 feet (out of visible sight), and maybe even invisible. So people today, faced with properly-done future technology, can't see it at all.
I _suspect_ they mean that certs imported into MMC in Windows can be accessed at magic paths, but...yeah linux can do that because it skips the step of making a magical holding area for certs.
there are magical holding areas in Linux as well, but that detail is up to TLS libraries like openssl at run-time, and hidden away from their clients. There are a myriad of ways to manage just ca certs, gnutls may not use openssl's paths, and each distro has its own idea of where the certs go. The ideal unix-y way (that windows/powershell gets) would be to mount a virtual volume for certificates where users and client apps alike can view/manipulate certificate information. If you've tried to get a internal certs working with different Linux distros/deployments you might be familiar with the headache (but a minor one I'll admit).
Not for certs specifically (that I know of) but Plan9 and it's derivaties are very hard on making everything VFS abstracted. Of course /proc , /sys and others are awesome, but there are still things that need their own FS view but are relegated to just 'files'. Like ~/.cache ~/.config and all the xdg standards. I get it, it's a standardized path and all, but what's being abstracted is here is not "data in a file" but "cache" and "configuration" (more specific), it should still be in a VFS path, but it shouldn't be a file that is exposed but an abstraction of "configuration settings" or "cache entries" backed by whatever thing you want (e.g.: redis, sqlite, s3,etc..). The windows registry (configuration manager is the real name btw) does a good job of abstracting configurations, but obviously you can't pick and choose the back-end implementation like you potentially could in Linux.
> The windows registry (configuration manager is the real name btw) does a good job of abstracting configurations, but obviously you can't pick and choose the back-end implementation like you potentially could in Linux.
In theory, this is what dbus is doing, but through APIs rather than arbitrary path-key-value triplets. You can run your secret manager of choice and as long as it responds to the DBUS API calls correctly, the calling application doesn't know who's managing the secrets for you. Same goes for sound, display config, and the Bluetooth API, although some are "branded" so they're not quite interchangeable as they might change on a whim.
Gnome's dconf system looks a lot like the Windows registry and thanks to the capability to add documentation directly to keys, it's also a lot easier to actually use if you're trying to configure a system.
The version I'm describing has it physically sitting in front of you at the time, so you can see that the colours haven't been changed "on the fly" after you pick an edge. In this version:
(A) I colour it;
(B) I cover the vertices so you can't see any of them, but I can no longer change them;
(C) You choose the edge, and I reveal the endpoints.
Converting this to a digital version requires further work ... my intent here was to explain the underlying idea that I can prove (to some degree of confidence) that I have a colouring without revealing anything about it.
So just off the top of my head, for example, I can, for each vertex, create a completely random string that starts with "R", "G", or "B" depending on the colour of the vertex. Then I hash each of those, and send you all of them. You choose an edge and send me back the two hashes for the endpoints, and I provide the associated random strings so you can check that the hashes match.
This reminds me of the "Where's Waldo (Wally in UK)" example:
You can prove that you found Wally with a large piece of paper with a hole in it. You move the hole over Wally, and the person you're sitting with can see you found it, but he's no wiser about where.
Another way is to get them to put marks/signatures over the back of the blank. Overlay to e blank, and cut Wally out of it where he occurs on the actual page and give them the cutout.
Not really. You're talking about a fungus creating essentially a nuclear reactor inside of its cells, and creating it out of fuel that's not good enough to make a nuclear reactor in the first place (it at one time was, but now it's a mess of decay products and nonsense).
Reactors also take a certain amount of mass. You can't just squish two tiny microgram particles together and hope to get anything going.
Technically I guess I can't prove it wouldn't work if you make it dense/hot/covered-in-reflectors enough, but I'm pretty sure it's _well_ beyond the limits of what a fungus could even conceivably do.
Note that the only numbers on that page have various critical masses in kg. That's a bigass fungus.
And that's still not getting into: the "fuel" here is real shit. It's gotta be beyond its useful life even if you ignore that the thing melted down and corroded and blew up.
Most of what we live on, the vast majority, is iron or lighter. So it's more that we're sprinkled with supernova debris. But we are made out of stardust, so that's something.
An interesting fact is that while almost all of the Solar System has started as gas, which has then condensed here into solid bodies that have then aggregated into planets, a small part of the original matter of the Solar System has consisted of solid dust particles that have come as such from the stellar explosions that have propelled them.
So we can identify in meteorites or on the surface of other bodies not affected by weather, like the Moon or asteroids, small mineral grains that are true stardust, i.e. interstellar grains that have remained unchanged since long before the formation of the Earth and of the Solar System.
We can identify such grains by their abnormal isotopic composition, in comparison with the matter of the Solar System. While many such interstellar grains should be just silicates, those are hard to extract from the rocks formed here, which are similar chemically.
Because of that, the interstellar grains that are best known are those which come from stellar systems that chemically are unlike the Solar System. In most stellar systems, there is more oxygen than carbon and those stellar systems are like ours, with planets having iron cores covered by mantles and crusts made of silicates, covered then by a layer of ice.
In the other kind of stellar systems, there is more carbon than oxygen and there the planets would be formed from minerals that are very rare on Earth, i.e. mainly from silicon carbide and various metallic carbides and also with great amounts of graphite and diamonds.
So most of the interstellar grains (i.e. true stardust) that have been identified and studied are grains of silicon carbide, graphite, diamond or titanium carbide, which are easy to extract from the silicates formed in the Solar System.
The Intel Arc B60 probably would have made a splash if they had actually produced any of the damn things. 24GB vram for low prices would have been huge for the AI crowd, and there was a lot of excitement and then Intel just didn't offer them for sale.
The company is too screwed up to take advantage of any opportunities.
reply