mzs

Everyone who paid for expensive equipment that gets UT1 time to a tenth of a second in a year or two.

https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/time-di...

I'd prefer if dUT1 was restored to ±.9s after NTP rollover in 2036, Y2K38, and GPS week rollover in 2038. This way we now know precisely what the UTC times will be for those events and dUT1 probably will be <10s at that point. Software will need to deal with times like 23:59:63 properly by then (too much still can't handle 23:59:60 leap seconds yet). Maybe we could have dUT1 < ±9.9s going forward.

The problems with letting dUT1 > 1800 and above is that well before that it starts mattering for almost everything and then you have to consult the solution (here's just 2025's):

  https://crf.usno.navy.mil/quarterly-vlbi-solution

That's generated by the US Navy for all intents and is way more data than used now for leap seconds which are fine enough of a granularity for most things. Future timestamps in UT1 will get difficult to handle as well. Previously software could assume it knew to the closest second which was often good enough.

Late night infomercials for get rich quick scams and spam fax machine ads were all over the place by the late '80s sadly.

The article links to the book „Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman which seems interesting. Anyone read it have thoughts?

That is amazingly useful tool I didn’t know about until now, thank you.

I mean the values of the computation not the runtime. I don’t know enough about ARM to say if doubles simply punt denormals to 0 for example.

Are the results compared across architectures?

CVE-2026-32746

> https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-septemb...

GTG-30005: Military reconnaissance

Naval reconnaissance

In another investigation, we identified and disrupted an Iran-nexus threat actor that used Claude to collect and analyze publicly accessible data to develop targeting recommendations against US naval forces in the region. The threat actor used Claude to compile targeting handbooks, through a Python pipeline the threat actor built with Claude’s assistance, to identify and track naval positions based on open-source information. The compiled material included a roster of US personnel scraped from captions on public military photographs; publicly accessible ship and aircraft transponder identifiers; commercial satellite-imagery query scripts; and an inventory of public websites that exposed US naval movements. The threat actor also directed Claude to compile vulnerability research on shipboard systems, cataloging known CVEs in maritime VSAT terminals, Cisco communications equipment, and industrial control products.

We banned the actor’s account, developed detections to reduce the risk of future misuse, and shared threat intelligence with government authorities to disrupt the threat.

For DDSCAT there is the C analogue ADDA which is faster under most typical current uses. There's also IFDDA (basically fortran with a C++ convenience wrapper) offering the best performance with NVIDIA.

It's not really about the compilers ever since C99's restrict (you can almost always equal fortran performance now), it's how much more you have to think and validate about how to write the C/C++ plus the compiler and linker options to use.

Also with C99 you get many of the convenient aspects of fortran (<tgmath.h> and vardim array function args) and with C11 you also get <complex.h> now.

But you are still missing fortran's ** operator and it's more than just syntactic sugar, it accepts more types.

omitting when training concluded

edit: ffsm8 makes a great point below, it doesn't matter. I'm not great with dates, sorry.

"It was splendid! Waiter, share my regards with the oven."

This is precisely what I would write after just learning that yes it did.

AI companies don't share the dead ends and only sometimes a bit of the process toward success so people don't understand what was curious along the way.

I always wondered about how feasible the usb drive propagation bit always noted was. Was there ever any evidence that the hardware was already infected at a less scrupulous reseller? I’ve heard of another site in EU that had misbehaving s7. It could have been a reseller that played loose with licensing.

nice series from same author:

https://www.leadedsolder.com/2020/02/16/colecovision-diy-par...

"This reporitory [https://tangled.org/janantos.tngl.sh/brow6el] is now the main and only source of truth, previous on Codeberg [https://codeberg.org/janantos/brow6el] is kept for referrence only. I have decided to migrated from Codeberg because of my other projects are not welcomed there anymore and I want to keep my projects together on single platform."

Similar story for our youngest - excuse after excuse. We just bought two round-trip tickets to Warsaw and paid privately. It was a little more but my wife and son got to spend time with friends and family for that extra. The effort we had spent in US we never got back. I hope it worked-out okay for your family as well.

"I've never been suicidal..."

That's why you can't understand.

I wonder how, if at all, you can improve precision with 4 stratum-1 clocks like he author has.

I miss the days of knowing who last touched every source file and precisely what version it was:

  $ what /usr/bin/file
  /usr/bin/file:
   PROGRAM:file  PROJECT:file-106
   $File: apprentice.c,v 1.309 2021/09/24 13:59:19 christos Exp $
   $File: apptype.c,v 1.14 2018/09/09 20:33:28 christos Exp $
   $File: ascmagic.c,v 1.109 2021/02/05 23:01:40 christos Exp $
   $File: buffer.c,v 1.8 2020/02/16 15:52:49 christos Exp $
   $File: cdf_time.c,v 1.19 2019/03/12 20:43:05 christos Exp $
   $File: cdf.c,v 1.120 2021/09/24 13:59:19 christos Exp $
   $File: compress.c,v 1.129 2020/12/08 21:26:00 christos Exp $
   $File: der.c,v 1.21 2020/06/15 00:58:10 christos Exp $
   $File: encoding.c,v 1.32 2021/04/27 19:37:14 christos Exp $
   $File: fsmagic.c,v 1.81 2019/07/16 13:30:32 christos Exp $
   $File: funcs.c,v 1.122 2021/06/30 10:08:48 christos Exp $
   $File: is_csv.c,v 1.6 2020/08/09 16:43:36 christos Exp $
   $File: is_json.c,v 1.15 2020/06/07 19:05:47 christos Exp $
   $File: is_tar.c,v 1.44 2019/02/20 02:35:27 christos Exp $
   $File: magic.c,v 1.115 2021/09/20 17:45:41 christos Exp $
   $File: print.c,v 1.89 2021/06/30 10:08:48 christos Exp $
   $File: readcdf.c,v 1.74 2019/09/11 15:46:30 christos Exp $
   $File: readelf.c,v 1.178 2021/06/30 10:08:48 christos Exp $
   $File: softmagic.c,v 1.315 2021/09/03 13:17:52 christos Exp $
   $File: file.c,v 1.190 2021/09/24 14:14:26 christos Exp $
  ...
 
  WHAT(1)                     General Commands Manual                    WHAT(1)
  
  NAME
       what - show what versions of object modules were used to construct a file
  
  SYNOPSIS
       what [-qs] [file ...]
  
  DESCRIPTION
       The what utility searches each specified file for sequences of the form
       "@(#)" as inserted by the SCCS source code control system.  It prints the
       remainder of the string following this marker, up to a NUL character,
       newline, double quote, `>' character, or backslash.
  
       The following options are available:
  
       -q      Only output the match text, rather than formatting it.
  
       -s      Stop searching each file after the first match.
  
  EXIT STATUS
       Exit status is 0 if any matches were found, otherwise 1.
  
  SEE ALSO
       ident(1), strings(1)
  
  STANDARDS
       The what utility conforms to IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 ("POSIX.1").  The -q
       option is a non-standard FreeBSD extension which may not be available on
       other operating systems.
  
  HISTORY
       The what command appeared in 4.0BSD.
  
  BUGS
       This is a rewrite of the SCCS command of the same name, and behavior may
       not be identical.
  
  macOS 26.4                     December 14, 2006                    macOS 26.4

archive of forth translation of Crenshaw’s howto

https://web.archive.org/web/20190712115536/http://home.iae.n...

You'll probably dislike this too:

  $ {
  >     echo foo \
  >     && echo bar \
  >     || echo baz ;
  > }
  foo
  bar
  <^P><^A>$<^F>IFS
  ${IFS#   echo foo   && echo bar   || echo baz ; }
  $ _

There's good and bad to both approaches. I like how I can use () and {} to bracket things and otherwise every line that end in \ is continued. I line-up on the left with the operator, you with indentation. When you use a # style comment, you have to look up and back and forward to see what the operator is you are continuing over to the next line:

  $ foo |
    bar | # ?Do? *the* $bar$ && [do] {it!}
    baz

Which only takes an extra neuron or so, but then history...

  <^P>
  $ foo |   bar | # ?Do? *the* $bar$ && [do] {it!}
  baz

Wow I hate* that. I use bracket comments. They're cool cause they are bracket comments, so I use it in scripts to document pipelines. They are annoying cause they are bracket comments, in an interactive shell I have to type more and in TWO places. It's fun to reason-out how it works ;)

  $ echo foo | tr fo FO | sed 's/FOO/BAR/'
  BAR
  $ echo foo | ${IFS# tr fo FO | } sed 's/FOO/BAR/'
  foo

It's nice to have a way to both /* ... */ and // ... in shell scripts though:

  foo \
  | bar ${IFS Do the bar. Do it. } \
  | baz

* in the best possible way, like it's awful - I hate I didn't think of that

indeed: B. Joshua Rosen https://www.polybus.com/hdlmaker/Resume.html