This just again shows that given enough time skill, and resources, any security is pointless if the attacker has physical access to the device.

I think this might be a good example of the fundamental misunderstanding of what "security" even is. It is never a binary state. Never was. And I think a lot of people don't really grok that and think that if a security block can be overcome in some manner then the thing is not secure.

Eventually Fort Knox will succumb to the unrelenting arrow of time and some future visitors will simply step over the crumbling wall and into the supposedly "secure" area.

I see security as a stopgap measure when there's no peace. The best "security" is not to need any in the first place.

"grok" in that sense is from a novel, i think Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein. i heard it before i read the novel, i'm sure, but i didn't notice it until afterward.

it means like "full understanding", like complete.

Does the name now make sense, considering!?

i find this statement is often used as an excuse to not think about security at all. which is probably not what you intended here (i hope, although you did say "pointless"...), but some people parrot it for that purpose.

a) this was a security win. millions and millions of people had physical access to the device for over a decade

b) as others have said, security is not all-or-nothing. the xbox one is extremely secure, despite not being perfectly secure.

c) just because something eventually gets hacked does not mean security was pointless. delaying access is a perfectly reasonable security goal. delaying access until the product is retired and the successor is already out on the market is a huge win.

One of the DRM circumvention methods for the Xbox 360 involved precision drilling a specific depth into one of the chips on the board. Microsoft was very aware of the nature of physical access while designing this, haha.

I had many Xbox 360s with flashed DVD drive firmware back in the day. But as I never owned a slim console I had no idea the drill/Kamikaze hack was a thing until now.

This seems like an unqualified win for the security measure. The future value of Xbox One DRM is probably close to zero. They already got what they wanted out of it.

At this point the blip of free media coverage possibly makes this a net positive for XBox.

In the talk that the security guy gave, he said it just had to cost more than 10 games for a user to enable piracy

I can give you a piece of paper with a one time pad encoded secret, where the one time is physically destroyed. You can take all the time you want but you will not crack anything…

You don't need to attack the math, if you can attack the sender or thr receiver ['s hardware].

Good luck If I burnt the one time pad.

Give me enough time to reverse entropy

'pointless' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

This console went completely unhacked for 12 years, with this coming a solid 4 years after the hardware was discontinued. They kept piracy off the console for its whole lifespan, which was the entire point of these security measures. This is a massive success for the Xbox security team.

I’m pretty skeptical of that lesson. This took 13 years and it’s cheap mass-market hardware.

I suppose, but I'd argue it's effective security if it took ten years.

Better stop locking your doors, then.

You do have a credit card, right?

The "book" is accompanying studying material for the course Probabilistic AI at ETH Zurich. Essentially each chapter is the material covered in one lecture (3hrs).

Source: I did the course

I think this is where a lot of textbooks come from.

Often times chirality is not just a fun quirk. For certain drugs, the left handed and the right handed versions can have completely different effects on the human body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_drugs#Drug_toxicity. To avoid making the wrong type of drug, a specific way of producing the chemical molecule has to be derived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantioselective_synthesis.

And sometimes it doesn't change much at all except for the patent and withdrawal as with citalopram/escitalopram (generic Celexa/Lexapro).

There is no independent scalar floating point unit for most modern CPUs. When scalar floating point arithmetic is needed, it is send to the SIMD unit. This pretty means that scalar and vectorised floating point operations usually have the same latency. If you do any scalar floating point operations, the CPU is just doing vectorised operations except with only 1 useful value.

Is it really true that there's no scalar FPU at all? What about x87?

The instructions are still there even in 64-bit long mode, they use their own registers, and there are enough idiosyncrasies (80-bit extended-double precision, stack-based operations, etc.) that I would expect it to be easier to just include a dedicated scalar x87 FPU than try to shoehorn x87 compatibility into the SIMD units.

If every other exchange is selling $AAPL at $100 and suddenly the top level of one exchange drops to $99, then if you just take out that order you basically gain a free dollar. Do this very fast and have pricing the product accurately and you will print tons of money.

It's not that simple. It could just be that exchange is the first one to drop to 99 but all others will as well.

Yeah I gather that is the expectation, but if you are the first to execute an order you will sell that order at the old 100 price before it lowers. You are fighting for making an order before the information spreads to the other bots. (Right?!)

That's different from what you hinted in your previous message.

"Making" has specific meaning as well, and I don't think it's what you're trying to say.

It's the predecessor of Go1. If you buy the Pro/Edu version of Go1 then you get direct low level SDK control, though there are reverse engineering efforts that can do the same on the cheap ~5k version as well

At least in clang, your variant is not any better: uninitialized reads return the special value `undef`, which the compiler can constant-propagate to both uses of `sparse_val`. But then each `undef` can turn to a different value at each use, even if they both came from the same uninitialized read.

For a similar simulation but using a different method, you can find one here[0]. It obviously lacks the force control, but has the viscosity tunable parameter.

[0]:https://matthias-research.github.io/pages/challenges/fluid2d...

Step 3.5, see some other interesting paper is referenced in the related work, go to step 1.

Step 3.5-turbo, have ChatGPT summarize papers for you to speed up your reading

LlaMAo :)

While the github contains the code, the article describing the optimisations are here: https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/neural-engine-tra....

TL;DR: execution of pytorch models on apple's neural engine and standard data-oriented optimisations (changing matrix layout, chunking to optimise temporal cache locality, and minimising redundant memory copies)