Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Prunkton's commentslogin

sounds to me like a 'Why didn’t our new model get restricted by the government?'-cryout

Phoronix.com is my go to place for good news. It always gives me a sense of progress and makes me feel humble since so many smart people share their work


just... never delve into their forums.


Such great work! Happens quiet regularly I hit a game just realizing seconds later I haven't shut down my local LLM yet. At least punishment will be less harsh. Lets see, maybe some games in window mode will just work fine.


From the Age Verification Blueprint:

>AVI [Age Verification App Instances] SHOULD support the generation of Zero-Knowledge Proofs

Maybe I'm not seeing the full picture but as long there is a 'should', the whole thing is worthless. Keep in mind, national states need no implement their own solutions and AFAIK during the pilot phase ZKP was just skipped. Could be for other reasons (was not finished yet) but in the end a 'should' is a 'should' and no 'must'.

Source: https://ageverification.dev/av-doc-technical-specification/d...


interesting, not a single word about satellites and how they are influencing the quality of their work. I would imagine the telescope is affected in particular of this problem by taking constant snapshots of huge areas in the night sky, but nope...


Those are filtered in the data processing pipelines, before the data is exported. Streak-detection algorithms work very well, and they can mask known satellites from the data. It was, in fact, a key requirement of them being allowed to operate. VR is sensitive enough that it can sense the "secret" [1] national security sats, so they filter those early in the pipeline, and only issue alerts for things that are not satellites.

[1] - https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/12/vera-rub...


They are not all filtered early nor are they necessarily missing from images. The data can be embargoed until orbits change effectively.


Right. I'm not sure if you're referring to LEO sats or "secret" sats here, but in any case you're correct that not all get removed. It's possible, depending on the particular orbit that a 30sec exposure wouldn't produce a long enough streak to get caught by the filters.

Anyway, here's what the oficial FAQ [1] says about the process, they are trying to remove them all, but not always succeeding.

> Streak detection is implemented in the Rubin data processing pipelines, and occurs in two main portions of the pipeline. First, pixels associated with detected streaks are identified in the image mask plane and excluded from contributing to the deep coadded images. Second, sources identified in regions associated with streaks or glint trains are flagged during image subtraction and not used to create new difference imaging objects. In addition, alerts are only sent for detected difference-image sources that do not coincide with known satellite sky locations.

> Signatures from satellites may appear in LSST data products despite the Rubin Data Management team’s best efforts. Difference imaging catalogs have some flag columns which are designed to indicate sources that may be affected by streaks or glints (e.g., look for columns with “streak” or “glint” in their name). The IAU CPS SatHub has developed NOIRLab-hosted tools that may be useful for scientists working with Rubin data products.

[1] - https://rubinobservatory.org/for-scientists/frequently-asked...



I'm glad it's not a huge issue:

"Simulations of the LSST observing cadence and 40,000 LEO satellites show that about 10% of all LSST images would contain at least one satellite trail"

"Satellites and debris dimmer than 6th to 7th visual magnitude still cause streaks and glints, but typically leave the rest of the pixels scientifically usable."


It’s such a non-problem it’s not even worth mentioning.

The surface of the Earth is big. If you place 40,000 car sized objects on it in random places, you’d not be able to see then from low earth orbit.

That’s approximately how irrelevant they are in the sky.


This overlooks that the Rubin telescope has a relatively wide field of view and a thirty second exposure time, so LEO satellites do routinely appear in images. The size of the object isn't so important as its relative brightness, so while a car on the surface of the Earth is hard to locate from 400km above, a sunlit car 400km up in the night sky is visible to the naked eye.


A sun lit satellite on the night side of the Earth.

You’re really starting to push the friendship.


It's a problem in that it needs to be handled in data processing, it isn't a problem in that the impacts on science are not too bad compared to the benefits of those satellites.


Its a non-problem, until it is a problem .. and, wouldn't you want to know in that case?

Especially[0] if we can blast the thing out of the sky, one of these days ..

[0] - https://c.tenor.com/o9t2JYNU4LYAAAAd/tenor.gif


I'm working and gaming on Garuda for over 3 years and not planing to switch any time soon.

It runs super smooth, with the build in 'wayback machine' and 'curated' Arch distro (7.0 zen kernel just dropped a week ago) pretty much bullet proof for beginners or as a daily distro if you want to get stuff done w/o caring much about it - just loving it. On the other hand side you have cutting edge gaming tech like wine/proton staging versions per default, so I'm playing Blizzard games with NTSYNC (the tech from the article) for several months now :) Forgot about most of the flashy default UI though :D


I'm hopeful the article is right about its prediction, although I'm under the impression the attacker/defender dynamic is asymmetric and the defender on the loosing end. I hope someone can proof me wrong though...

Making the assumption that the same amount of money needed to attack a critical vulnerability is also required to find and fix it.

Lets say we have a project with 100 modules, and it costs us $100 000 to check these modules for vulnerabilities. What is stopping an attacker from spending the same amount of money to scan, lets say 10 modules but this time with 10x the number of tokens per module than the defender had when hardening the software?


so apparently it is Proton GE 10.9 from July'25 adding ntsync support [0].

I'm playing on wine now for several years now, my deepest respect for the developers involved. Thank you!

[0]: https://www.linuxcompatible.org/story/geproton109-released/


What I was wondering after reading the article: How does Mulvad actually decouple banking data from the account ID? Or is it as simple as verify transaction once but never log?


I think they remove the invoice after a month. You can also, send them cash in an envelope


So there's no subscription thing going on, you just manually pay invoices?

I once spent an entire year issuing chargebacks on AWS charges coming from god knows what AWS account. Most likely some client project I forgot about and didn't have the login to anymore, who knows. Makes me think about that - for a service where you can't login if you lose the credentials, how do you cancel a subscription? In my case I had to eventually just cancel the credit card and get a new number.


No subscription. It’s pay as you go. You top up $X and you get X months. That’s it. If your month expires, it expires. Just top off and you’re good to go.


You can pay with an envelope of cash, so they don't need your banking data to begin with.


Perhaps so, but that's damn difficult or very risky for all but a very select few.


Because you can't mail cash? Or it won't be delivered without a return address


A short(ish) review of how things are going for Facebook now Meta, 10 years after the VR / AR shift announcement.

The 2015 statement can be found here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/399594551/2015-06-22-MARK-S-...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: