colemannugent

It kinda is. If they use Chrome and it's cloud backed password manager, odds are they use GMail. That plus full access to a trusted device (which you have in this scenario) allows you to change their Google account password. Boom, full persistence.

I can think of at least a dozen easier ways to do nefarious things with this level of access that are at least that simple. As an example, faking user attribution would be trivial.

How could Google patch this? If the client is compromised and the attacker can manipulate the local TPM or it's equivalent there's no defense.

>4. Using the hash of that handshake, the attacker interacts with the victim’s TPM and uses the extracted identity key to sign the handshake hash together with the assertion request

Huh? If you have this level of local privileges you can just read session cookies from the browsers store? I guess stealing all the keys is notable, but you can manipulate any password manager with this level of access right?

What's the threat model here, that synced passkeys should be secure in even in situations involving compromised clients? How?

Not on the public status page, you have to be signed in to a Microsoft account to access this link.

One of the recent updates:

>Starting at 14:44 UTC on 23 July, 2026, customers may have experienced intermittent connectivity failures, increased latency, or difficulty accessing Azure services in West US region. Customers with traffic traversing the West US region may also experience downstream impact. Impacted services include, but are not limited to:

>API Management, Application Gateway, Azure Database for PostgreSQL, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), ExpressRoute Circuits, ExpressRoute Gateways, Network Infrastructure, Power BI Embedded, Virtual WAN, VPN Gateway

>We have identified a potential trigger and are isolating certain impacted devices and redirecting portions of traffic to healthier devices as part of a mitigation plan. We are actively monitoring traffic patterns and service recovery. We will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation, assess customer impact, and investigate contributing factors. We will provide additional information as soon as it becomes available.

DBeaver will generate an ER diagram from a connected DB

They can pin certs, but at least you know that you can't see that traffic and make a policy decision about allowing it anyways or trying to force the vendor to drop it.

Which is why you need a modern firewall that MitMs both TLS and SSH. Not hard to do these days.

TLDR: Bard will render Markdown images in conversations. Bard can also read the contents of your Google docs to give responses more context. By sharing a Google Doc containing a malicious prompt with a victim you could get Bard to generate Markdown image links with URL parameters containing URL encoded sections of your conversation. These sections of the conversation can then be exfiltrated when the Bard UI attempts to load the images by reaching out to the URL the attacker had Bard previously create.

Moral of the story: be careful what your AI assistant reads, it could be controlled by an attacker and contain hypnotic suggestions.

Could you add a general "game" for round-based games?

The current Scrabble score-card is close, but it would be nice to have a per-round score and a running total as columns.

Seriously, ~120 comments and this is the first one to question the posts legitimacy?

The reddit poster goes on to comment:

>15 minutes phone call to decide to file for bankruptcy and for them to take their money back (and then some) and shut down my company

What? In no world would that happen. Even a mostly failed company has quite a bit more value than $0.

No mention of the name of the company or even the vertical. 100% BS.

>https://www.r-c-y.net/posts/machining/

Great info, thanks for posting!

>scan their intranet and find a network share

Did their IDS/IPS not go off on this? I wonder if this was a sophisticated scan designed to go slow and evade detection or if it was just nmap lol

I can't wait for the post-mortem, hopefully lots of good lessons to learn.

So here's the main problem I see with this:

>Anyone who can articulate their ideas in language can implement them

I'd be shocked if even 10% of the users who can't navigate a GUI could accurately describe what they want the software to do. To the user who doesn't know they can use Ctrl-Z to undo, the first half dozen times the AI mangles their inherited spreadsheet might be enough to put them off the idea.

This is a shockingly coherent summary. The accuracy leaves a bit to be desired, but this is perfectly usable for distilling things you don't have time to fully evaluate.

Keeping with ancient Solomonic tradition, I say we deport some top ICE officials until they knock it off.

What I really want to know is what kind of robot arm motion is produced when the network is given a cat image to classify. More specifically, what kind of insights has it learned from one control domain that it then applied to another?

I imagine that the simulated 3D environment and the actual control of the robot arm must have some degree of interconnection neurally.

It's related to the Bandwidth Delay Product:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth-delay_product

https://networklessons.com/cisco/ccnp-route/bandwidth-delay-...

Every now and then some network middlebox ends up screwing with your TCP window sizing and then the bandwidth delay product rears its ugly head.

I'd be interested in seeing if there were any "attributes" that they could not easily explain.

I suppose that a well trained model shouldn't have too many of these, but it would be good for things like detecting intentional manipulation of training data.

This also makes it way easier to fool classifiers by exploiting known high-impact attributes.

Thanks for putting this together. You're doing the Lord's work.

I'm afraid I still don't understand. Are you arguing that there is some utility in considering "concepts or ideas" non-physical from an ontological perspective? Because I think we both agree they're solidly physical in the sense that a "thought" can be reduced to chemical signaling.

On the QM side, I'm pretty sure that you're incorrect in your postscript. It was my understanding that certain physical processes can only be understood though probability and that talking in terms of wavefunctions is the most correct way to do that.

>...the idea that there are aspects of our minds that don't exist within this physical universe is not outlandish or bizarre...

That's where we disagree. Can you give me an example of anything that doesn't exist within this physical universe? I'm not familiar with the concept of a "thing" that isn't physical.

Sorry about being confusing with the last sentence. I'll try and address your questions:

1. When we talk about the likelihood of something being true we are now discussing probabilities, which have a long and well proven track record of obeying the laws of statistics. Statistics are quite often counter-intuitive and our brains don't think in terms of the math that governs the actual outcomes

A good example is the birthday problem [1]. Imagine we had a room full of people and we wanted to know what the odds are that two of those people in the room had the same birthday. Obviously the more people we have, the more likely we are to have a match, but how many people do you need to get to that point?

It turns out that with just 23 people in the room there's a 50% chance of two people having the same birthday. Most people's intuition leads them to believe that for 50% you'd need 365/2 = 182.5 people, but once there's 70 people in a room, you're almost certain to have a match with a probability of 99.9%. This is a good example of a case where not knowing the math will lead your predictions of the world to be incorrect.

2. When we discuss evidence we are trying to figure out the probability of something, thus the rules of probabilities apply. One of the fundamental theorems of statistics is Bayes' Theorem [2], which at its core tells you how to calculate the probability of an event given another event.

To motivate that, here's a more realistic example: "A patient goes to see a doctor. The doctor performs a test with 99 percent reliability--that is, 99 percent of people who are sick test positive and 99 percent of the healthy people test negative. The doctor knows that only 1 percent of the people in the country are sick. Now the question is: if the patient tests positive, what are the chances the patient is sick?"

If you answered 99% then you'd not only be wrong, but you'd have misdiagnosed your patient. The correct answer here is 50% [3].

3. To bring it all together: to properly know things one must understand the laws of mathematics. This applies not just to problems that obviously involve probabilities, but everything in general.

At it's core, I think our disagreement revolves around this idea of non-physicality and the belief that there are things that aren't governed by mathematics. Everything is physical and obeys the laws of physics which themselves are governed by the laws of mathematics.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem

[3] https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/bs/bs704_probabi...

>We actually have no scientific evidence either way.

That's how we know it's nonsense. When there's no evidence for something it doesn't mean that it's 50% Likely to be true.

If I told you there's a dragon in my garage you should immediately think that I'm lying because you've never seen any prior evidence of dragons anywhere.

Mathematically, things with no evidence for their existence don't exist.

The latest installment in the "Government doesn't understand math" series

I wonder if these would be a good fit for the DIY mechanical keyboard scene. With a board like this it looks like all you'd need electronics-wise is a battery and a charge controller.

I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to get QMK running on these.

It doesn't look like these are close to the Pro Micro pinout though, so perhaps a shim PCB to wire things up correctly?

They called to stay popular because they kinda suck. The setup you described works on one host and produces static graphs.

With Prometheus and Grafana you can monitor an entire data center and add visualizations for metrics as you need them with no change to the monitored hosts.

TLDR: the old software stack could be made to do this, modern monitoring stacks do it out of the box.

They've had an Electron version out for at least a year now. I use it every day on Ubuntu.

https://github.com/jgraph/drawio-desktop

Basically it randomly kills prod nodes and forces engineers to consider this when designing their services. This is one of those "so stupid it's genius" ideas, kinda like mailing DVDs rather than having people to go to a movie store.

This gets my vote. Keep a recording of the confirmation for any potential legal issues.

Plus the image of the silence in an office being punctuated by the occasional "DELETE" or "CONFIRM DROP TABLES" is hilarious.

>Knuth has been doing literate programming for 35 years

I shouldn't be surprised, that man had a lot going on. Just TeX and Big-O notation alone would be enough to permanently enshrine him in the CS heap of fame, but the hits don't stop there!

Kinda funny how much just one guy could affect research.

>Notably, we haven’t cut any features with this new layout

Perfect. Simple defaults for new users, more dense interfaces for power users. Other projects take note, you don't need to sacrifice the cool stuff to drive adoption.

I really wish tools like this or Jupyter Notebooks were around when I first started studying CS in school. Mixing notes and code is such an interesting use-case.