No, they are correct, because the deciders themselves are just a cog in the proof of the overall theorem. The specification of the deciders is not part of the TCB, so to speak.
I'm pretty sure this is a feature that's available at least to big creators – I remember a Tom Scott video doing a bit involving scheduling an ad at a particularly fitting moment.
You might have to be a YouTube partner or something like that to make use of this stuff, though.
I have heard of at least one instance of an exam a while ago, where some questions – ones that need diagrams in their statement – would be written onto the blackboard in the exam room, due to limitations of the duplication techniques used for the exam paper.
You're talking about industrial PLCs. They're programmed using a-bit-more-fancy Scratch snappy blocks. There is no version control. The firmware contained paths embedded as strings, so we know that firmware for each model and customer was developed in a separate folder on disk. I wouldn't be surprised if they also had .zip files with backups of previous versions.
I've seen a lot of discussion about YouTube banning adblockers, but as a user of Firefox + uBO, I have never seen it happen for me. Perhaps the Firefox extension ecosystem makes it easier to push blocklist updates or something. Or YouTube's detection is browser-specific and they bothered with the largest first.
How do you make the new machine compute BB(754)? BB is the canonical example of an uncomputable function, precisely because you can decide the halting problem if you can compute it (or any upper bound). Granted, BB may be computed for specific arguments, as OP mentions for 1–4, but the existence of the ZFC-dependent machine is, at least to me, a very good argument that the boundary of what's possible is much lower.
The standards claim that the existence of such a (SEED, a, b) tuple is enough to show that there is nothing special about the curve in question. But if one in a billion curves have a special property that only you know about, which would make it easier for you to attack the cryptosystem, you can try a variety of different SEED values until you find a desirable curve.
- Multi-party computation. Too much overhead for something like this.
- Remote attestation, as seen in e.g. Intel SGX. Usually provided by the CPU vendor. Not a cryptographic guarantee, more of a "it'd be very hard to defeat this if you're not Intel". Probably not that warrant-resistant.
I don't think it's strncmp itself that's the problem. They fucked up and are only checking that the provided password matches a prefix of the stored password. And obviously an empty string is a matching prefix.
The software is the matrix multiplication and gradient descent. We are talking about the numbers in the matrices. They are the output of a training algorithm, so we can only talk about the copyright on the training algorithm, and on its input data.
Not even that - instruction fetch can cause a page fault. When an NMI happens,the CPU still has the choice of when to service it. If it needs to flush the pipeline, it might as well retire the instructions up to the first store.
Note: it's not asymptomatic, but asymptotic - without the ma. I can only wonder whether you've always been writing it like that, or if this is the toll that the pandemic had on you.
Poland has a very similar numbering system, the PESEL. It can change if the date of birth was recorded inaccurately and you need to correct it, or, because the PESEL encodes gender, when you get your gender marker legally changed.