1,771 karma · joined December 1, 2014
It would be profoundly stupid (and unlikely) that Sony would send data from the sensor to software, then sign using keys simply read into software.
So no, jailbreaks very likely would have zero ability to sign an image.
The article says there might be a flaw, and it would be a huge deal. It does not state those phones are broken. It does not extract keys, which would be needed in the case of Sony cameras to sign fake pictures.
Here's a later followup article from Elcomsoft, one of the best security firms around [1]. The key quote: "checkm8 does not affect the Secure Enclave."
So no, they did not extract keys needed that would be needed to sign new phots for the Sony phone.
And later iPhones have removed this as a vector. It's unlikely Sony made the same mistakes quite old iPhones did, since they have the ability to learn from past security issues.
[1] https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2021/05/checkm8-based-extraction-...
Ever look at the list of uncracked videogames and how long the top ones have lasted?
Why would sony cameras not leverage knowledge gained from iphone security features?
And there is a lot more stuff they can do to prevent such naive attacks.
By your simple reasoning, all iphones would be cracked, yet even the USA govt hasn't been able to crack into them.
And what they propose is vastly better than doing nothing.
Yep, it shows an incredible quantity of money laundering through the service.
Again, claims of privacy is not enough magic to make them free from legal requirements for money laundering laws. Privacy claims do not make banks immune from money laundering. Privacy claims do not make anyone free from meeting legal requirements.
>those are purely conjecture
The above states ~1/7 of all money flowing through can be tied to criminal behavior. If true, that's an astounding ratio that would rightfully put a bank out of business and key players in prison.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. 1-1 we tied :)
And again , not equivalent. If local duffel bag makers knew duffel bags were used significantly for crime, and added features to facilitate crime, and ignored laws requiring tracking criminals (which is what money processors have to follow), then the duffel bag maker would be criminally liable.
In the cast at hand, the company processes the transactions for criminals. That is vastly different than selling a duffel bag. And it runs afoul of criminal money laundering laws that all processors have to follow, and for good reason.
This is why the courts are the place to hash such stuff out - internet opinions are vastly inferior to people performing investigations using evidence.
Not a valid comparison.
Courts and law have long held the completely reasonable position that if the main intent of a product is not to commit crime, that those using it for a crime are held responsible, not the producer.
Conversely, if a product is designed to facilitate crime, or is used significantly more for crime than not, then the liability starts to shift to the producer (as well as the users).
This is the latter case. If the courts show that the producers knew the product was used for crime and added features to assist that on purpose, then they should be held liable.
According the to article, 14% of money moved through the mixer was of criminal origin. If any bank did that, they'd rightfully get hammered by the law (and they do, for vastly smaller ratios of criminal activity).
There are laws about facilitating criminal money laundering.
I looked through New Orleans rates. They never doubled.
I find zero cases where the electric rates doubled, which is what the person here claimed.
As far as complaints, I can find people here complaining their rates doubled, when in fact they did not. Going to another place is not much different than here.
As far as I have found, no electric company doubled rates, contrary to lots of hearsay.
The only actual stories with solid data say the increase is due to natural gas prices, which have not nearly doubled, so it'd be surprising that the end product doubled. And stories showing how unusual high heat waves have caused people to use more energy, which naturally results in a higher bill.
Also, that's completely different than inflation caused, and I doubt the higher bills would last long if that double monthly bill is true.
Also, if people were undercharged, then they owe the money. Basically they got a better deal by paying less early.
The evidence for dark matter is pretty solid.
As this [1] article states, while giving 5 independent reasons scientists think dark matter exists, "No other idea explains even two of these".
Wikipedia lists eleven different places it shows up.
The research literature has more. And AFAIK there is no other unified (or even close to unified) explanation for all these observational pieces of evidence.
[1] https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-...
I've yet to find anyone with bills doubled, despite so many people claiming it true. But I keep asking....
More data: https://www.gulfshorebusiness.com/expect-electricity-bills-i...
So the conclusion that gasoline was the biggest factor in the overall reduction is not true.
Here's where you can dig out the weightings used from the BLS [1]
[1] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/weight-up...
What supplier and location, out of curiosity?
So don't discount adding currently undetected things as explanations for surprising measurements. It's been extremely fruitful.
Knowing stuff about them let's you get powers of polynomials easily, or know certain things about roots (is there a real one? What can you tell about the signs? Lots of neat identities for special kinds of matrices...)
The "coeffs from roots" stuff is pretty straightforward to prove.
"Symmetric polynomials arise naturally in the study of the relation between the roots of a polynomial in one variable and its coefficients" [1]
In this case the issue is tiny, the fix is tiny. It's not like a recall where a decent number of people will die from exploding gas tanks, which also falls under the word "recall".
Maybe if they added a severity, even a simple 1-5, like computer people use for vulnerabilities, or the military uses for levels of alert, or we use for storms, and so on, this would not happen.
But using the correct word can be alarmist if articles, headlines, or pundits use it to scare beliefs into the middle of the possible range when it's at the low end.
Amazon already has your address - so they already can get detailed maps of your house, tax records, likely income, and on and on, from other records. They can link to all your public data (Linked In, FB, Zillow, whatever else is for sale) to build massive profiles of you, your purchase history, your neighbor's purchase history, and so on).
This purchase is more likely to get more robot expertise, patents, and capability as they want to automate more of their entire pipeline of moving goods. That is where the big money is. Saving a few percent on a several hundred billion pipeline via automation is massive.
Fed and most economists state this is true inflation that will last. Adding trillions of money for free during the pandemic is extremely unlikely not to add long term inflation.
Here's [1] the IGM poll of leading economists on it from last Nov.
>"Inflation" is a buzz word
Inflation is an economic variable that has a solid definition, and it's very likely the current (non-disputable) inflation will have a long lasting component. For example, as a result of inflation, there is ample evidence wages have risen from pressure, and wages are known historically in economics as "sticky," meaning they are much harder to lower than to raise. This alone would give long lasting inflation (and has done so historically).
High inflation means values are simply bigger, with no other changes needed, so increased profits are exactly expected in high inflation (along with high revenues, high prices, high costs, high spending, .... that is the definition of inflation).
So your claim that larger numbers "suggests an economy dominated by monopolies" is demonstrably not true. It can merely be inflation with zero other changes.
Fortunately we have a metric that measures what people actually spend on goods, called inflation, which is under 10%.
They're trivial to look up, and any modern source would likely outlive the game of telephone of trying to keep such a comment intact correctly.
I'm not in particle physics, but have read textbooks and papers in many areas of theoretical physics, and I understand enough of this abstract to know what it's going to do.
If MHV is an acronym you think should be expanded, it is not. There's well over 500,000 hits on google for MHV physics, and only 2900 hits for the expanded term. It is a widely used term in the field.
You just quoted the fact that the NBER defines when is is a recession: "The bureau considers a recession to have occurred when there has been an extended substantial, and widespread decline in aggregate economic activity—or, duration, depth, and diffusion. The bureau has not specified the breakpoints which distinguish recessions from milder slowdowns. Its experts depend rather on comparisons of current cyclical trends with what happened during previous business cycles, a process that involves some qualitative judgment and interpretation of cyclical trends."
Each economic environment may have specific factors that make it a recession or not, and there is not published any simple rule. There is no way you (or I) would be able to understand the nuance they consider - they even state it's based on each event so they can consider the many, many factors before calling one.
Since there is no rule as simple as the two quarter belief, the NYT article does not state such a simplistic rule. A complex rule would be beyond the readership of the NYT, so they would not write it out anyways.
If you really cared to learn, I suspect there's tons of papers, and likely even past meetings minutes, on how each one was decided. If you learn enough to understand those, then you might understand why there is such nuance.
Are we now in agreement that recessions in the US have not been defined according to a simple 2 quarter rule now? And that the NBER has historically been the group of experts that makes the determination? Or do you still disagree that is how it have been done for a long time now?
>Upon further research, it seems pretty shady.
Yes, you cannot remove the conspiracies from someone that really wants one. Your 5 minute research surely surpasses the quality of the rest of the entire profession.
> It's telling that you give them such credence.
I find experts more reliable than uneducated internet mobs.
It's not wishy washy. It's nuanced, and takes experts to carefully assess. There is no simple check one of many indicators to some fixed threshold over all of time definition.
I get you don't like the facts, so you use wishy-washy as your description.
>why isn't it mentioned in 1974? Maybe the NYT dropped the ball.
From the 1974 article: "Generally, the designation of recession periods and the beginning and ending dates established by the National Bureau of Economic. Research, a private research agency, are accepted, by both Government and private economists. For more than 50 years, the bureau has studied alternating periods of business expansion and contraction in order to chart their progress, identify cyclical peaks and troughs, and analyze causes of economic fluctuations."
"In the nineteen‐twenties, when the bureau work, was getting under way, periods of decline were usually called depressions. As time went on and declines in economic activity became less severe, the term recession became more common. A more neutral term, contraction, is also sometimes used."
So it's clearly mentioned. Are you even reading the articles?
>In terms of duration—declines in real G.N.P. for 2 consecutive quarters; a decline in industrial production over a six‐month period.
> There's your 2 quarters boundaries, back in 1974.
Yes, if you ignore every other sentence in the article and pull one out of context that suits you, then yes, I can see how you got your beliefs.
>to deny the 2 quarter rule of thumb never existed is pretty transparent to most people.
To deny that the rule of thumb is not sufficient, has never been sufficient, and has always relied on a more nuanced assessment is simply spreading more ignorance for political reasons. I get that such ignorance works for a populace desiring outrage. To double down on it when presented with the facts is simply willful ignorance, an entire bigger level.
There are many "rules of thumb," but pretty much zero of them capture the entire nuance needed for the item at hand, which is why they are rules of thumb. Rule of 72 for compound interest works, somewhat, as long as you stay near 7-10% interest. Chemical reaction speed doubling every 10 degrees Celsius works, as long as you stay near room temperature and pressure and don't hit certain odd cases. The ideal gas law works, but only again in special cases. 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' works, except when it doesn't.
This is the same thing. Every rule of thumb is a rough idea, but never the final answer.
2 quarters may be a rule of thumb, but it is not a the definition. It's too coarse.
Also, if you're going to post articles, please read them first.
Dig through google scholar using terms like "confidence" and "recession" to find many more.
Dig through google scholar using terms like "confidence" and "recession" to find many more.