For proof of work to be fair, you need a robust & secure job that produces results with a uniform distribution of zeros and ones. FHE gives you that, while performing useful computation.
> Hey @VitalikButerin, instead of doing proof of work with useless puzzles, why don't we use that massive GPU compute power to help science with numerical computation? We could wrap the problem using @HomomorphicEnc techniques. Efficiency would improve overtime. ASICs are welcome.
I hope somebody at Microsoft read this. It goes far beyond security vulnerabilities. The Teams Linux client is barely usable. Chromebooks don't even have a client.
Could Microsoft expose an API and allow third party clients to be developed?
If your .vimrc is minimal, you will have a pretty good time using systems that implement "vim like" text editing. Take Overleaf for example, no vimrc is available, but I'm quite happy with what I got, and sometimes I even forget I'm in the browser.
And fast! I got easily 3 orders of magnitude speedup. I used to load CSVs with pandas and do typical filtering operations... oh boy, some of the stuff would take a hole morning, not to mention the memory usage. I do all that in minutes now.
I'm in the middle of a PhD myself, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
I actually agree with the author, certain fields are just very complex to develop a solid understand without proper mentoring and support you would get as a grad student.
That said, maybe the real issue is not the fact we need two PhDs each, but the question I want to raise, do PhDs need to take 4/5/6 years? (I'm not even considering the cases where people, like myself, do a 2 year master program before the PhD...). Honestly, in my humble opinion, it is not necessary.
Maybe universities could develop "industry focused dual PhD programs" to target specifically crazy folks like us :)
Quick comment, not an expert, but environ vars keep their state after the program is called. From a functional programming perspective, or just for my own sanity, wouldn’t it be more interesting to keep the states into minimum?
Design is not all. There is a reason IC design houses are vanishing, it is too expensive to design custom chips. Only large companies can afford the tapeouts, testing, Packaging, and large volume production.
During a CC certification, the design-house, mask shop, and fab are certified to reduce the chances of the chip being tampered. The certification ensures that all those places have decent security practices and protocols. It helps but is quite far from completely mitigating it.
I don't have any reference of a mask being modified to give to you, but it is so easy to do it that we don't actually need evidences to be worried.
If you think about it, just by changing implantation parameters on the transistors that form a ring oscillator for generating random numbers can bias it (this does not require not even modifying the mask).
I think if you can enforce that the user will resynthesize the design on his own, and you make sure the synthesis/placement is different, you are way ahead of any other AISC alternative in terms of trust.
1. FPGAs are easier to verify cause they are regular structures.
2. How do you insert a backdoor in an FPGA at the supply chain if you don't know what is the exact logic that is going to be uploaded?