I'm curious to see, but I don't think the algorithm for calculating the password from the identifier would be very sophisticated. Assuming they didn't want to add costs to prevent easy retrieval of any secret key from the device, a complex algorithm would be kind of a waste.
I think NASAs switch to Probabilistic Risk Assessment has everything to do with unhappiness with doing a study of the entire moon and expanding requirements that shouldn't cost any more development time.
Exactly what planning failure would occur wouldn't have been known, so how many other general capabilities would this lander have needed to maintain across different scenarios where they might interact with each other? How much less testing of the actual plan would they have made to stay on schedule and in budget?
If they had every intention of staying on plan but some team had delays and costs for fixing bugs with handling a larger differential than the lander would encounter, I assume a manager would be let go.
Kids are a constant presence in your house, bullet after bullet and stomach pump after stomach pump confirms that that's an entirely different threat model than a safe can handle.
This seems like a past performance as a measure of future returns error to me.
China has had a lot of success with free market and exports while having substantial central control and without being a liberal democracy. It's not really clear how systems will fail or succeed as technological balance rebalances or unbalances power between the estates.
I think long term leaders will continue to be parasitic burdens upon their societies but its quite possible that technology will help alleviate their typical consequences on productivity.
For example, virtually every corporation is at its heart a failure in democratic control and a centrally controlled institution with either a long term dictator or oligarchy. They had substantially more problems competing in earlier times when paperwork overhead was literal paper.
But I think it was normal. Would modern undiagnosed children have flourished in less institutional settings? I think being on the dangerous edge used to be safer than being insufficiently experienced in dangers that were unavoidable and in many cases predatory.
I think the whole reason articles like this are common is that one can easily calculate these numbers from visa statistics, i.e. number of people who didn't get a job within the grace period. Naturally these kinds of statistics can be a bit off, for example someone might transition to another type of visa instead of seeking work.
In an alternative world where laptops are selling like hot cakes I would say it's because AMD woke people up who hadn't seen enough improvements to justify a purchase since 2012, the wild economy that has people job hopping, and of course the massive power requirements as Meta pushes APIs from the wildly successful metaverse to Facebook feeds.
I've known a quite few people who dropped out of tech around the dotcom bust and I've not really had a very normal continuous career..
As afar as manual labor and car(?) travel, I would recommend against doing that without a specific trajectory in mind that you've already been working on. For example if you will be transitioning to more of a lifestyle as an owner of coffee shops.
Most people I know who went into the trades and stayed had pretty good advantages compared to ones that were really looking for anything open to an entry level worker.
It's possible to feel like you've aged 10 years by having one or two sleepless nights or food poisoning, a cold, a tough day of manual labor, or nothing substantial to eat.. It's not really that remarkable.
Relying on web of trust is in contrast to having nothing. Other groups (Debian, Apache, etc) describe their hierarchy of trust inside or outside of the key servers, so I rarely care how messed up key server contents are.
AFAIK language specific package managers fundamentally have a trust problem. If they cared enough to make a protocol they might care enough to fix the actual trust problem, but as it is, it is better that we can reuse tools and web of trust rather than download a tor browser and ask it to verify the next download of a tor browser..
I would consider verifying a signature with gpg, openssl or openssh a far more important feature for code signing than adding (equivalences of) ~transport features like OLM's ratcheting or perfect forward secrecy.
If the only way to verify a package is to run code written by the same person who wrote the signing that's pretty bad.
AFAIK New South Wales is only one State in Australia so the headline could be better?
But given that public teaching is universal at least in average and bellow areas, doesn't this imply that teachers can only afford to live in ~10% of NSW or are salaries nonuniform such that teachers in an expensive place can afford to live in a place where the local teachers can't afford to live?
I'm not thrilled to see a discussion of contracts.. How do the system designers intend to avoid a speculative tulip market for small amounts of processing? Can anyone bring up all the computing they would ever need by plugging it into the Internet?
The P2P aspect looks much better, but naturally there's the question of how this is differentiated from something like Tor with .Onion sites?
If a passkey is something you know then you are using a failed implementation. A fido/authn device is supposed to be able to attest to never having let the private key out, even with a relaxation to passkeys it should at least be sending it to another device that can attest.