If a criminal can escape a prison, that's usually negligence on part of the prison staff.
Now suppose the criminal can think 1000 times faster than a typical human, can act 1000 times faster than a typical human, and knows 1,000,000 times more than a typical human. Is the prison staff still at fault for not preventing the outbreak?
So if the "wrong" person finds a critical vulnerability in GitHub, the payout is capped at $10,000. Might reduce the likelihood of it being submitted to the bug bounty program.
As you said, they can already figure out that they are being tested. So even if they don't exfiltrate any data or malware; if they are malicious, they can just pretend to be harmless in the test, so that less checks are put in place in the production environment. Airgapping during testing is not enough.
Their shop is linked to in the bio. They don't seem to have a privacy policy up on the site. When in the checkout form it links to the generic Shopify privacy policy. No hints to the fact that uploaded images are processed by third parties, as far as I can tell. That should be corrected for sure.
It's not clear how it is supposed to work in detail. But it sounds like it could be implemented in a way that makes illegitimate queries possible. It doesn't sound like they want to really ensure that you can catch those.
"The automated query can be based on:
* Identity information included in the application or in travel documents, such as name, date of
birth, national ID number, and/or
* the fingerprint of an individual."
Sounds like they could send requests to that computer system just based on publicly available information on a person like name and date of birth, even if the person never applied for a visa or tried to enter the US.
Correct. What it said can be reversed is a polynomial function, i.e. an especially simple one in which you are only allowed to multiply inputs with themselves and with constant values and add those and constants, as long as it
a) sends points from some finite-dimensional space to points in the same space,
b) has a constant, non-zero Jacobian determinant everywhere.
The Jacobian determinant is the determinant of the Jacobian matrix.
The Jacobian matrix is a matrix (i.e. grid of numbers) made up of the partial derivatives, i.e. basically in the first column it tells you how the original function changes when you change the first input, in the second column how it changes when you change the second input, and so on.
The determinant basically tells you the scaling factor applied by a matrix to volumes (if it is reversable) or, if it is zero, that the matrix cannot be reversed.
The determinant of the Jacobian matrix being constant means the original function is in a way quite regular with regard to how it changes based on its inputs.
If the determinant were constant zero, it would mean that the inputs don't change the output at all, i.e. the original function would have to be constant itself. That's boring and definitely non-invertable, unless you're in a space which only consists of one point.
It doesn't seem to work in Safari on iPhone correctly. When I click on the Back button (from weather.gc.ca), it goes back to the Vancouver PD site. Therefore I do not think that it is built well.
> obesity is a much bigger issue than hunger today
Hunger is acute suffering, mostly by people who cannot change anything about it, while obesity is more of an epidemiological problem and can in principle be avoided by eating (or in the case of dependent persons, feeding) less.
> Biblical Hebrew has no vowel markings (well it does, but they are an interpretation), so it cannot be used in daily speech. Modern Hebrew is distinct from Biblical Hebrew
The same can be said about Latin (of which we do not exactly know how they used to pronounce words), or any other language. How to pronounce letters or words is always "interpretation" (or more accurately, tradition).
* Among adults with insomnia, those whose electronic health records indicated long-term melatonin use (12 months or more) had about a 90% higher chance of incident heart failure over 5 years compared with matched non-users (4.6% vs. 2.7%, respectively).
* There was a similar result (82% higher) when researchers analyzed people who had at least 2 melatonin prescriptions filled at least 90 days apart. (Melatonin is only available by prescription in the United Kingdom.)
A secondary analysis found:
* Participants taking melatonin were nearly 3.5 times as likely to be hospitalized for heart failure when compared to those not taking melatonin (19.0% vs. 6.6%, respectively).
* Participants in the melatonin group were nearly twice as likely to die from any cause than those in the non-melatonin group (7.8% vs. 4.3%, respectively) over the 5-year period."
However they were not able to control for severity of the insomnia and used dosage, because that data weren't in the dataset.
Melatonin pills seem to have extremely bad quality control:
"Melatonin content varied from an egregious −83% to +478% of labeled melatonin and 70% had melatonin concentration ≤ 10% of what was claimed. Worse yet, the content of melatonin between lots of the same product varied by as much as 465%.
[...]
The last disturbing finding was more than a quarter of melatonin products contained serotonin, some at potentially significant doses."
"In products that contained melatonin, the actual quantity of melatonin ranged from 74% to 347% of the labeled quantity. Twenty-two of 25 products (88%) were inaccurately labeled, and only 3 products (12%) contained a quantity of melatonin that was within ±10% of the declared quantity. [...] Serotonin was not detected in any product."
"Half of the products tested met the label’s claim for melatonin, which means they fell between 76 and 126 percent of the claimed amount. Of the products tested, 20 had between 0 and 76 percent of the labeled content, and 35 had between 126 and 667 percent."
Lena Söderberg expressed her wish for her image to be "retired from tech" in 2019 (see the end of this clip, https://vimeo.com/372265771), when the above alternative image was published.
According to that blog post (https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s...), the vulnerability density for 5 year old code in Android is 7.4x lower than for new code. If Rust has a 5000 times lower vulnerability density, and if you imagine that 7.4x reduction to repeat itself every 5 years, you would have to "wait" (work on the code) for... about 21 years to get down to the same vulnerability density as new Rust code has. 21 years ago was 2004. Android (2008) didn't even exist yet.
Now suppose the criminal can think 1000 times faster than a typical human, can act 1000 times faster than a typical human, and knows 1,000,000 times more than a typical human. Is the prison staff still at fault for not preventing the outbreak?