From my standpoint, this isn’t about revenge. It’s about accountability and alignment with broader realities. Over the past 18 months, we've seen over a million layoffs across the US tech sector alone. White-collar industries everywhere are tightening belts. The US government also had massive layoffs due to DOGE.
And yet, I haven’t seen a single example of administrative downsizing in our public universities—not one. Instead, I hear about professors losing grant funding and international students facing stress over visa uncertainty.
So when I say universities aren’t hearing the message, I’m referring specifically to the glaring lack of reform in their administrative structures. Until I see serious efforts to address this—starting with large-scale administrative layoffs—I'm not inclined to offer my sympathy.
In the city where I live, the contrast is striking: the local state college boasts dorms and facilities that are remarkably luxurious—architecturally grand, stylish, and visibly well-funded. Meanwhile, the local NVIDIA office operates out of a building that looks decidedly unremarkable, even shabby by comparison. One is supported in part by public funds; the other is a profit-driven enterprise.
I absolutely believe in the value of academia and agree we should support it. But this administration has made it clear that reform is expected. I’m not convinced that message is being fully heard. Until we see meaningful changes—such as a leaner administrative structure and a shift away from spending on vanity infrastructure—I’ll pass.
I think everybody is missing the point. If one grad student was able to do this, imagine what a team of dozens of well-paid, well-equipped, and highly experienced security experts could do.
In other news, we just learned that any half-decent security agency has already injected their own vulnerabilities and back-doors in OSS.
It might be flawed, wrong, stupid, etc. but that’s not a reason to flag it. Argue against, bring more light into the discussion. Censoring it brings no good.
Sam, I know that you now spent a couple of months with researchers, and thus can write "deep" articles on researchers vs. founders now. Everyone knows that the best kind of researchers in the world are all at OpenAI now, and that gives you a chance to observe them.
On a serious note, I beg you to write about things other than research and researchers. Leave them alone, outside of the media spotlight and your writings. You see the media and its spotlight have a tendency to disrupt and destroy value. If you truly want do good, leave them alone. Please.
I have not read the paper, and I could be wrong. However, these appear to be attacks against the crypto implemented inside a TPM/fTPM.
The reference implementation of TPM 2.0 leaves the choice of the crypto library up to the platform vendor. If my suspicions are correct, it sounds like some of the platform vendors decided to use crypto libraries vulnerable to timing attacks. Hmmm...
But there should be a distinction between academic conferences where professors from U. Mich are publishing and practitioner conferences aimed at industry (including sales, etc.).
My criticism is about academic conferences -- there's little skepticism left when reviewing papers describing attacks. As long as it's cool, it's in.
Look at the title above: "Hard Drive of Hearing: Disks that Eavesdrop...". It's not far off from the headlines on CNN or Fox News. At this rate, I predict by 2025 we'll have Breaking News red banners on academic conferences sites.
Let me re-assure everyone out there ... No, your disks are not eavesdropping. Disks eavesdropping should be the least of your worries security-wise.
The main trait of a top researcher is skepticism -- the willingness to doubt results. You learn to be skeptical as part of the training during your Ph.D.
Unfortunately, the standards have fallen. The security community is one of the worst instances of the lack of skepticism in the science arena. The community has started to reward clickbaity papers because they "sell". It's a race to the bottom.
1. The article's point is that the "The Race to 5G is BS" and not "5G is BS". Please adjust.
2. I can try to offer an answer to the author. History has shown that a novel piece of technology often leads to innovation. Dial-up led to BBNs and the Web, broadband led to audio and video content delivery, and so on. Winning the "race to 5G" means the US will be the first to innovate in systems that take advantage of faster wireless broadband networks. That's important. IMO.
I really hope this event is picked up by the media. This is truly worrisome because it unnecessarily erodes US's ability to be at the forefront of technology research.
This is not about H1B visas. Not about the Muslim ban. Not about China.
This is about a famous scientist from a friendly country who has already traveled to the US countless times. Oh, and due to him, we can conduct secure electronic transactions on the Internet now.
IMO, somebody at the US State Department should be fired.
And yet, I haven’t seen a single example of administrative downsizing in our public universities—not one. Instead, I hear about professors losing grant funding and international students facing stress over visa uncertainty.
So when I say universities aren’t hearing the message, I’m referring specifically to the glaring lack of reform in their administrative structures. Until I see serious efforts to address this—starting with large-scale administrative layoffs—I'm not inclined to offer my sympathy.