That's what makes me think it's legit: the root of this whole issue was that OpenAI told GPT-4o:
Over the course of the conversation,
you adapt to the user’s tone and
preference. Try to match the user’s vibe,
tone, and generally how they
are speaking.
Android systems can do this today. After an orderly shutdown of new software, then it can mark the new stuff as good and not allow older software to boot.
The funny part is the Samsung update that bricked a10 phones was a update to smart things, so it couldn't use the Android A/B capability to roll back lol
Broadcast AM stations sometimes have to pay other towers in the area to install a special ground match unit on their tower legs, that makes the non-broadcast tower "invisible" - otherwise there'd be a null in that direction. Like a cardioid shape.
I think that titles are confusing, but your links for example are not the same thing as the innovation in the article.
For nexperia, if you read the datasheet in fact it is a module that will harvest energy from a photovoltaic cells.
For the e-peas, this is what says the datasheet:
"RF input power from -18.5 dBm up to 10 dBm (typical)".
So this is just the typical energy harvesting from an incoming signal.
In the original article, they said that their new technology allows to harvest energy under -20 dBm that was impossible till then.
> There was and is absolutely nothing wrong, and quite a lot right, by having the 2FA program completely separate from your password vault.
Did you read the article? That's what they say.
> For maximum security, you can store your 2FA token elsewhere ... but for general purpose use, storing your 2FA in your password manager is an acceptable solution due to the convenience benefits it provides.
No, that's not what they say. If you read the text that you just now quoted, you will see that it says "storing your 2FA in your password manager is an acceptable solution due to the convenience benefits it provides". Clearly the writer of that text believes there _is_ something wrong with having 2FA completely separate from the password vault: it is less convenient, to the extent where they are happy recommending this horrible approach to laypersons.
In addition, if you go and read OP, you will find that they talk about the potential of losing access to your TOTP codes stored in Google Authenticator. So that's another thing that counts as "something wrong" with storing 2FA separately from password vault.
So there's at least 2 things in the article that count as "something wrong". So they definitely didn't say that there's "absolutely nothing wrong".
They say it's less convenient, that doesn't mean they say it's wrong. And yes it is less convenient, why are you saying it's "horrible"? Security is always about compromises, if the less convenient method causes people to come up with workarounds then it would be worse even if in theory it's more secure.
> if the less convenient method causes people to come up with workarounds then it would be worse even if in theory it's more secure
but that's literally what this is... the less convenient method (2FA) caused people to come up with workarounds (saving 2FA secrets in their password vaults)... and I'm saying it's horrible
It's enough to find a fingerprint that's visually similar enough. It doesn't have to be exactly the same. That's many orders of magnitude easier than finding an exact match!
Mainstream theories are so good that they dwarfed competition. Lack of competition caused lack of progress. It was easy to collect hundreds of downvotes on HN just by talking about alternative theories or about physical representation of abstract theories. Now such comments will collect mere dozens of downvotes. It also should be obvious that a new successful theory will account for more things, so it will be much more complex than previous theories.
The writing style is exactly the same between the “prompt” and “response”. Its faked.
reply