hinterlands

A different type of prejudice. One of the groups is "merely" claimed to be inferior. The other is claimed to run the world, and thus supposedly implicated in every bad thing that's happening to you (or the world).

I think you need to read between the lines here. Anything you do is a legal risk, but this particular risk seems acceptable to many of the world's largest and richest companies. QEMU isn't special, so if they're taking this position, it's most likely simply because they don't want to deal with LLM-generated code for some other reason, are eager to use legal risk as a cover to avoid endless arguments on mailing lists.

We do that in corporate environments too. "I don't like this" -> "let me see what lawyers say" -> "a-ha, you can't do it because legal says it's a risk".

Vulnerability researchers? For public projects, there's a strong preference for prestige stuff: ecosystem-wide vulnerabilities, new attack techniques, attacking cool new tech (e.g., self-driving cars).

To pay bills: often working for tier A tech companies on intellectually-stimulating projects, such as novel mitigations, proprietary automation, etc. Or doing lucrative consulting / freelance work. Generally not triaging Nessus results 9-to-5.

Xbow has really smart people working on it, so they're well-aware of the usual 30-second critiques that come up in this thread. For example, they take specific steps to eliminate false positives.

The #1 spot in the ranking is both more of a deal and less of a deal than it might appear. It's less of a deal in that HackerOne is an economic numbers game. There are countless programs you can sign up for, with varied difficulty levels and payouts. Most of them pay not a whole lot and don't attract top talent in the industry. Instead, they offer supplemental income to infosec-minded school-age kids in the developing world. So I wouldn't read this as "Xbow is the best bug hunter in the US". That's a bit of a marketing gimmick.

But this is also not a particularly meaningful objective. The problem is that there's a lot of low-hanging bugs that need squashing and it's hard to allocate sufficient resources to that. Top infosec talent doesn't want to do it (and there's not enough of it). Consulting companies can do it, but they inevitably end up stretching themselves too thin, so the coverage ends up being hit-and-miss. There's a huge market for tools that can find easy bugs cheaply and without too many false positives.

I personally don't doubt that LLMs and related techniques are well-tailored for this task, completely independent of whether they can outperform leading experts. But there are skeptics, so I think this is an important real-world result.

There are gel-like resins, but you'd have massive issues with air entrapment. There's really no shortcut for making these. Casting in layers is the most common approach, but as noted in the article, it's hard to avoid slight refractive index discontinuities.

Just an orange-yellow tint. Here's a good example: https://preview.redd.it/k98iwl9flsk71.jpg?width=1080&crop=sm...

We had UV-stabilized resins for the past two decades or so, but it just slows down the process. I used several UV-stabilized products and it just doesn't last.

For the UV-stable options, you have polyesters (which are very smelly) and premium aliphatic polyurethanes (which are finicky to work with).

I've done some projects like that, although not with as many parts! I think the main disappointment that awaits the author is that within two years or so, the epoxy will turn yellow. These resins are unfortunately not UV-stable, even if kept in a reasonably well-lit area indoors (bookshelf, etc).

There are resins you can use for projects like that if you want them to last, but they're less fun to work with.

Every person says this, but it's a massive industry for a reason. It's the same as with The North Face logo on jackets. You're never paying attention and you don't recall any specific person wearing the jacket. But somehow, when it's time to buy a jacket, you know about the brand, and know all the people in your socioeconomic circle seem to like it.

Some online ads want to grab your attention, but most are just about building almost-subliminal connections like that.

I think this article is pretty confused.

There are two ways to dim LEDs: linear regulation and some sort of pulse modulation. Linear regulation is wasteful and you're pretty unlikely to encounter it, especially in battery-powered devices such as phones or laptops. Pulse modulation is common.

Human vision has a pretty limited response speed, so it seems pretty unlikely that PWM at a reasonable speed (hundreds of hertz to tens of kilohertz) can be directly perceived. That said, it can produce a stroboscopic effect, which makes motion look weird and may be disorienting in some situations. So I don't have a problem believing that it can cause headaches in predisposed individuals.

You can dim your laptop screen in a darkened room and wave your hand in front. Chances are, you're gonna see some ghost images.

Other than adjusting the frequency, pulse modulation can be "smoothed" in a couple of ways. White LEDs that contain phosphor will have an afterglow effect. Adding capacitors or inductors can help too, although it increases the overall cost. But that doesn't make the display "PWM-free", it just makes it flicker less.

It is AI-generated. I'm sure the author provided the prompt and liked the result, but it is the output of an LLM.