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

It doesn't reenter a BFU state, but it requires a passcode for the next unlock.

It's close enough, because (most of) the encryption keys are wiped from memory every time the device is locked, and this action makes the secure enclave require PIN authentication to release them again.

> It's close enough

Not really, because tools like Cellbrite are more limited with BFU, hence the manual informing LEO to keep (locked) devices charged, amd the countermeasures being iOS forcefully rebooting devices that have been locked for too long.


There is a way now to force BFU from a phone that is turned on, I can't remember the sequence

> Solar panels in space are more efficient...

... if you completely ignore the difficulty of getting them up there. I'd be interested to see a comparison between the amount of energy required to get a solar panel into space, and the amount of energy it produces during its lifetime there. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a net negative; getting mass into orbit requires a tremendous amount of energy, and putting it there with a rocket is not an efficient process.


My sketchy napkin math gives an order of magnitude of a few months of panel output to get it in space.

5kg, 500W panel (don’t exactly know what the ratio is for a panel plus protection and frame for space, might be a few times better than this)

Say it produces about 350kWh per month before losses.

Mass to LEO is something like 10x the weight in fuel alone, so that’s going to be maybe 500kWh. Plus cryogenics etc.

So not actually that bad



If you're using base 10, you can get "8K" and "32K" by dividing by 10 and rounding down. The 1024/1000 distinction only becomes significant at 65536.

Still the advertisement is filled with details like the number of chips, the number of pins, etc. If you're dealing with chips and pins, it's always going to base-2.

Perhaps the objection started out with something fundamentally irrational or opinion-based, and someone was ordered to "reverse-engineer" an objection out of that which wasn't trivially refutable - e.g. "the noise from the turbines will keep our submarine sonar from working" or "reports say that human smugglers are hiding aboard the windmills" or whatever.

Yes, I think thats very plausible. "inshore defense operations in an area of strategic importance will be excessively impeded by both development of this site, and future operations in ways which <REDACTED>" type thing.

One reasonable niche application I've seen of image models is in real estate, as a way to produce "staged" photos of houses without shipping in a bunch of furniture for a photo shoot (and/or removing a current tenant's furniture for a clean photo). It has to be used carefully to avoid misrepresenting the property, of course, but it's a decent way of avoiding what is otherwise a fairly toilsome and wasteful process.

This sort of thing (not for real estate, but for "what would this furniture actually look like in this room) is definitely somewhere the open-ended interface is fantastic vs targeted-remove in Photoshop (but could also easily be integrated into a Photoshop-like tool to let me be more specific about placement and such).

I was a bit surprised by how it still resulted in gibberish text on posters in the background in an unaffected part of the image that at first glance didn't change at all. So even just the "masking" ability of like "anything outside of this range should not be touched" of a GUI would be a godsend.


This program specifically targeted homeless youth; it seems plausible that the demographics of that segment might differ from the larger community.

This makes sense, targeting youth likely has a higher chance of a better outcome?

From my experiences, it does have a higher chance of better outcome, as homeless youth are usually homeless because of some family issue and not because they are unable to hold down a job as a result of drug abuse or being homeless.

Yup. And the longer they’re homeless the higher the likelihood that they do develop health or drug problems and shift from being relatively easy to relatively difficult to get back on their feet.

Plus, homeless youth can include kids as young as 14 or 15, who are especially vulnerable to predators on the street.


There are reasons targeting youth could be more effective. But a more direct reason this project targeted youth was Oregon's homeless youth program designed it.

Functionally there's very little distinction - a question asked by a law enforcement officer during a search and seizure will inevitably be understood as a demand, no matter how it's worded. (And doubly so when it's in the context of e.g. choosing which of the person's fingers to grab and press to their phone.) I'm surprised that the warrant even acknowledged the possibility of a "voluntary" disclosure.

Unfortunately, eBay uses emoji in the subject lines for a bunch of their transactional email, e.g. "<U+1F4E6>ORDER DELIVERED".

> Unfortunately, eBay uses emoji in the subject lines for a bunch of their transactional email, e.g. "<U+1F4E6>ORDER DELIVERED".

Don't really use G-mail (I personally use proton) so I am not sure but can't special exceptions be made for E-bay if that's the case?


GMail doesn't currently have any feature to do that kind of filtering.

Which is why they go to spam so often.

How many PS2-era games used JIT? I would be surprised if there were many of them - most games for the console were released between 2000 and 2006. JIT was still considered a fairly advanced and uncommon technology at the time.

A lot of PS2-era games unfortunately used various self-modifying executable tricks to swap code in and out of memory; Naughty Dog games are notorious for this. This got easier in the Xbox 360 and PS3 era where the vendors started banning self-modifying code as a matter of policy, probably because they recognized that they would need to emulate their own consoles in the future.

The PS2 is one of the most deeply cursed game console architectures (VU1 -> GS pipeline, VU1 microcode, use of the PS1 processor as IOP, etc) so it will be interesting to see how far this gets.


Ah - so, not full-on runtime code generation, just runtime loading (with some associated code-mangling operations like applying relocations). That seems considerably more manageable than what I was thinking at first.

Yeah, at least in the case of most Naughty Dog games the main ELF binary is in itself a little binary format loader that fixes up and relocates proprietary binaries (compiled GOAL LISP) as they are streamed in by the IOP. It would probably be a bit pointless to recompile Naughty Dog games this way anyway though; since the GOAL compiler didn’t do a lot of optimization, the original code can be recovered fairly effectively (OpenGOAL) and recompiled from that source.

I'd say practically none, we were quite memory starved most of the time and even regular scripting engines were a hard sell at times (perhaps more so due to GC rather than interpretation performance).

Games on PS2 were C or C++ with some VU code (asm or some specialized hll) for most parts, often Lua(due to low memory usage) or similar scripting added for minor parts with bindings to native C/C++ functions.

"Normal" self-modifying code went out of favour a few years earlier in the early-mid 90s, and was perhaps more useful on CPU's like the 6502s or X86's that had few registers so adjusting constants directly into inner-loops was useful (The PS2 MIPS cpu has plenty of registers, so no need for that).

However by the mid/late 90s CPU's like the PPro already added penalties for self-modifying code so it was already frowned on, also PS2 era games already often ran with PC-versions side-by-side so you didn't want more than needed platform dependencies.

Most PS2 performance tuning we did was around resources/memory, VU and helped by DMA-chains.

Self modifying code might've been used for copy-protection but that's another issue.


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

Search: