Urist-Green

One of the aspects of MtGox's database leak that I found most fascinating to watch was the public effort to figure out users' passwords from the hashes. Checking common passwords, patterns, and people's public interests on Twitter was all shockingly effective.

The truth is less exciting. The flight suits are for air crew. The air force has a wide array of craft that need plenty of crew on board that will not go through the stresses of fighter combat.

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is the main issue with healthcare services on the cloud is auditing physical access to the machines. If any questions come up then the service provider "should" be able to tell a court exactly where a healthcare company's data is and what technicians had access at different times. Microsoft, Google, etc are still totally happy to sell that service, but there is a separate legal agreement that has to signed to say "we care about healthcare privacy".

I suspect there is a higher level question at play stemming from the "deny" comments. Do you think Barracuda is uniquely vulnerable to these types of threats and, if not, would their competitors make similar efforts to recover?

With the big caveat that I'm not into chess, but I have heard that higher level play is extremely pattern based. Seems like ChatGPT would work well as long as you stick to patterns that people have studied and documented. Less optimal play would be more random and thus break from the patterns ChatGPT would have picked up from its training corpus.

He used the 240 FPS camera on an iphone to measure time from start of key movement to screen update several times and rounded to the nearest 10ms. He also used a 1000 FPS Sony camera to recheck the 40ms and under results.

He does mention that he includes the keyboard latency; other latency test results he found exclude that step.

I find it fascinating that you think no one would bother to read details about a nerdy subject on Hacker News. Why else are we here?

Yes, you're right. "Soros"

I don't think we need to invent any political conspiracy theories here. My point with following up on the earlier article is that voters have stuck with the status quo. Invoking big names like George Soros gets attention, but the banal truth is that voters tend to stick with what they know.

I don't think that article supports your argument. Looking at the elections highlighted there it seems more like donations don't matter.

Sacramento - Noah Phillips - Lost

San Diego - Geneviéve Jones-Wright - Lost

Alameda - Pamela Price - Lost

Contra Costa - Diana Becton - Won

Three of the four candidates highlighted by the article for getting support from Soro's PAC lost. The one who won was the incumbent in that race.