Have you considered logarithms?

What do you mean by scanned twice? Can't someone leave and reenter?

Maybe it has a short TTL? So it would catch a group of people that all bought fake IDs from the same place.

Generally it's configurable. The one that comes to mind first is TokenWorks's Anti-Passback feature which says "Set your custom timeframe (1 hour to 7 days)"

https://www.idscanner.com/product-features/anti-passback/

All except the first person to get through. :)

I'd heard that hypothesis, but not that we seem to have evidence for it too.

Absolutely wild, thanks for sharing.

> Any model of the observable universe being the interior of a black hole requires that the Hubble radius of the universe be equal to its Schwarzschild radius, which is proportional to its mass. This is indeed observed to be nearly satisfied, but might be a coincidence.

> The only way to test the idea that black holes create new universes is to measure the observable universe. Inflation generated by spin and torsion is consistent with the cosmic microwave background data from the Planck satellite.

Wow speaking of asymmetries https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/538/1/76/8019798?logi...

I don't quite get the point of slowing down your drive toward a cliff... what's the strategy here? Is the goal to wait until another Congress comes along? Or are they planning to actually invest more in AI safety at the same time? Or are they just going to wait for society to do nothing and then blame society and speed back up?

I think you can see the Democrats all starting new committees and prepping bills and big AI is betting that Democrats will be in power soon. Too late IMO and won't make a difference.

What I'm curious about is how far they would've gotten without the postdoc.

This is a common pattern ahead of admissions season. Now admissions are mostly done I suppose.

What the instruction does is well documented, and the history of other invalid instructions being used for the same purpose in the past I'm guessing there is also well known, though a quick search doesn't turn up any official Intel documentation on the matter.

Given who this is and the overall quality of his output over the years, I'm willing to trust it isn't pure guesswork - and anyway, I'd trust his guesswork over many other people's absolute facts.

This is a first hand account of somebody very knowledgeable and respected in the industry at the time of the events. I would say he is the evidence.

He has been shown to be wrong in several cases, with the evidence presented from others, so I would say he's knowledgeable but not 100%.

Two questions:

1. How does the kernel detect the conflict?

> you can certainly boot with acpi=off if you want to and no ACPI code will be executed at runtime

2. How does the kernel prevent the firmware from running anything?

ACPI firmware is not code that runs by itself. It is code that the kernel interprets. If the kernel doesn't interpret it, it won't run. SMM firmware runs by itself but also can't interact with ACPI locks anyway.

For (1) - ACPI is how the kernel knows what addresses maps where. And when a driver claims the same address space, it knows there's a conflict

> Not around since 2015

> "but retained it in the last sentence"

> The author history was harder to understand. An earlier package file listed Pierre-Louis Favreau, Jean-Pierre Lo, and Nicolas Dehandschoewercker. The version that replaced it removed all three names and substituted another author. The only change to the files was the author list. GitHub’s activity record shows that the replacement happened through a force push in August, before our investigation this September.

Wow, this looks pretty damning. I can't imagine Google seeing this as worth the risks. Is an innocent explanation possible here?

I think that in case of large multinationals you don't need to search for innocent explanations, as a rule they are perfectly aware of what they're doing and that you are in no position to make them pay for it.

Might makes right, and these companies have more power than a whole raft of nation states. They act with complete assurance that absolutely nothing will come of it.

This kind of thing is almost always a result of the performance culture. There are a lot of promo oriented people in big tech who just want money and have no ethics (or engineering competency usually), sadly. These people have no issue at all plagiarising or stealing credit to get themselves more money and success. And it works.

Not Google or related to any of the projects.

This is normal (specific to pyproject.toml overwriting authors). I am not sure about pyproject.toml conventions but I would have done the same. This is the equivalent of telling you who the maintainers of the project are.

Usually what you see in the code is the retention of Copyright statements on source code and LICENSE with some reference on README.

The point is that the plagiarism is evident and they took steps to hide it, not that the authors should have been left as is.

The lack of any attribution at all is the ultimate issue like you point out, but the force push demonstrates intent over honest mistake in my opinion.

You can just add a line to clarify. You can't just wipe out other people's names.

If there is an innocent explanation, I'd love to hear it, because it kind of reads like the force push was done to move the commit with the attribution change out of the public eye so it wasnt clear what they had done.

Maybe it is possible the google engineer didn't understand how open source licenses work, or didn't care since maybe it was supposed to be an internal project first that eventually ended up open sourced?

For over a decade at least, Google has been a hostile entity hoarding trillion dollar's worth of wealth at the expense of everyone else's freedom and well-being. We don't need to embolden them any further by hunting for excuses.

Given the replacement author and email seem like a random person rather than an employee, I wonder if whomever did this thought they had found the "real" author and that somehow the others were incorrect? It's confusing, I don't know.

> As in, if I meant to travel at 70 and was instead doing 100 it doesn’t matter that I sincerely meant not to speed and did not know I was speeding, I can still be convicted even if the judge believes I had no intent.

IANAL but from what I've looked up in the last there's at least willfulness that matters for these things. For example if you could prove that happened because your car accelerator pedal broke and you had no opportunity to react, I'm pretty sure you would not be guilty, strict liability or not.

There are exceptions usually for extraordinary events.

In New York there’s a concept of doing various things “in the furtherance of justice”. Judges have broad discretion to dismiss or reduce tickets.

Often it so happens that those reductions increase the city/towns share of the revenue.

In those cases, the judge may find that circumstances would make a traffic ticket unjust. But the standard of guilt is strict and clear cut.

At that point you are not so much "driving" as you are sitting in the driver's seat of a renegade vehicle.