That's a tad pedantic. Everyone takes sand from the beach. That's simply the nature of going to a beach. The spirit of those laws is to prevent people from taking large quantities of sand for some personal or commercial purpose.
You may think it is pedantic, but it's not dissimilar to those that think "no cop, no stop" is valid. Just because you didn't get caught doesn't mean it's not violating the regulations.
The spirit of the law is not "large quantities", it's to get people used to the idea of letting nature be and not taking something just because you want to. If you come across a rock that you think is interesting and keep it for yourself, you're denying the next person to discover it on their trip. If you take a rock or two or maybe three, then so does the next person, and the next, well, you get how math works. So since people can't be trusted to not take, there exists an official policy that says you can't.
I think you partially misunderstood the previous comment. The "that's simply the nature of going to a beach" line refers to how, when you get home, you'll find your sandals, swimsuit, etc. covered in little grains of sand. But any police officer who tried to charge someone with taking sand from the beach because they sat down on the beach and some grains of sand clung to their clothing... would be completely overstepping the intent of the law (and would get severely reprimanded by any sane judge who got handed the case, just prior to said judge dismissing the case with prejudice).
Now, scooping up a handful of sand and sticking it in a vial would be against the law in many places, though I imagine a researcher asking for permission would probably be granted permission in most of those places.
I doubt a researcher would ask for permission for single vial and I rather doubt anyone has ever been prosecuted for that. At least in any sane jurisdiction. The problem is people who think "since I'm stopping by that river tomorrow anyway why don't I pack a tarp and shovel and save purchasing sand from the hardware store for my new patio".
I'm not sure what the situation is for rocks but given a relatively unpopulated beach if I see a neat agate or other mineral I'm definitely taking it with me. If everyone did the same the environment wouldn't be any worse off.
I believe kickopotomus just meant that whenever you go to the beach, and later return, you inevitably have some sand in your shoes, socks, b-crack, pants, etc... in this context your statement reads bizarre as if people are guilty of crimes just because some irritating sand decides to hitchhike in your socks...
Maybe with sand but you’re not even allowed to take sticks or even small rocks out of parks because if a 100 million took out just one every year it would have a significant impact.
Private artifact repositories also help to mitigate supply chain risk since you can host all of your screened packages and don't have to worry about something getting removed from mvn-central, PyPI, NPM, etc.
Plus the obvious need for a place to host proprietary internal libraries.
In part, yes, but the whole picture is a bit more complex. Intel and AMD both work with vendors to work out reference designs and power regulator configurations that are compatible with their CPUs. Modern power regulators are relatively complex, especially when you get into the high-end desktop and server space. There are a lot of things that can be done wrong and cause issues, such as voltage or current overshoot when the CPU moves between different power states (e.g. low to high load).
OpenAI does not have an advisory board. She is on the board of directors and has fiduciary responsibilities. It does not matter that the parent organization is a non-profit. The duty remains.
Yes, those responsibilities are to advance the charter of the organization, which notably is totally compatible with publishing articles that contain mild criticism of the organization's behavior.
The board’s fiduciary duties are to the charter of the nonprofit. They have no duty to protect the for-profit-OpenAI’s profits, reputation, or anything else.
This has been argued here already and dissected thoroughly.
It's basically restating 'her role is to cheerlead' but with more sophisticated wording.
You haven't made an argument, you've just used longer words to restate your (incorrect) opinion.
Also I never said they had an 'advisory' board. Board members ar either executive or non-executive members. If they're nonexec then their role is to advise the executive members. They're generally fairly independent and many nonexecutive board members serve on the boards of multiple companies, sometimes including ones that are nominally in competition with each other.
No, I never said that her role is to "cheerlead". Refraining from public disparaging remarks is not a big ask for a board member. Especially if those thoughts were not first brought before the board, which is where such disputes should be resolved.
> Also I never said they had an 'advisory' board
From your comment: "...it's absolutely the role of advisory board members to continue their work".
Not sure how someone is meant to parse that except for you to imply that she was a member of an advisory board.
Someone is meant to use context and understand that when the context clearly refers to someone who is well known to be a member of the board of directors, 'advisory board member' means that they are a board member in an advisory role, aka a nonexec.
That assumes that someone is familiar with the structure and makeup of boards of directors. It's a bit rude to participate in a conversation if you're not familiar with the subject matter and the meaning of words-in-context as you just waste peoples time making them elaborate.
> 'advisory board member' means that they are a board member in an advisory role, aka a nonexec
No, those are not synonyms. Advisory boards are distinct from the board of directors. Advisory board members have roles similar to what you alluded to in your original comment and do not have fiduciary duties, hence my confusion.
Non-exec board members are not involved with day-to-day business operations but their fiduciary duties are no different than exec members.
Language has meaning. Don't insult others for your own clumsy usage.
Ehh I don't think SVB is an apt comparison. When the FDIC takes control of a failing bank, the bank shutters. Only critical staff is kept on board to aid with asset liquidation/transference and repay creditors/depositors. Once that is completed, the bank is dissolved.
While it is true that the govt looks to keep such engagements short, SVB absolutely did not shutter. It was taken over in a weekend and its branches were open for business on Monday morning. It was later sold, and depositors kept all their money in the process.
It seems that your primary concern is that the government (or some bad actor) will be able to install a backdoor into PQC algorithms. Is that right? Why would PQC be more exposed to this type of subversion than existing public-key cryptography?
To your point about PQC being used exclusively, post-quantum encryption methods are designed to be resistant to both quantum and classical attacks. That is one of the key stated goals of the NIST post-quantum cryptography program.
it's less about a backdoor and more about just being a lot less robust in general. classical crypto is based on ~100 years of math on finite fields and ~50 years of heavy scrutiny by cryptographers. the post quantum algorithms are much newer and built on much less well studied math. (and empirically, a large number of them have been found to be completely broken). we're at least 20 years from PQC that can be widely trusted. there really just isn't an alternative to having a generation of grad students studying an algorithm that's as old as they are
For signatures, hash based signatures are quantum computer resistant and are also more secure than any other signature scheme. No reliance on a math problem if you don't count the cryptographic permutation to be one, but then everything relies on it regardless of what scheme is used.
The McEliece cryptosystem[1] is one of finalists in the PQC competition and it's also quite old - developed in 1978. It didn't face as much scrutiny as RSA or ECC due to its large key sizes which resulted in nonexistent adoption.
My understanding is that all the other PQC candidates including Kyber are much newer and far less studied.
High-end CPUs are actually not powered directly by DC. Basically all server (and growing portion of consumer) CPUs are powered by multiphase buck regulators[1] which split the power from from the DC PSU rails into a parallel set of modulated buck regulator power stages. The outputs of the parallel regulators are recombined to generate DC (as the combined waveform of the phased AC parts).
The reason for this multiphase design is because it offers better power efficiency and better transient response to the CPU as the CPU moves between it's different power states (high vs low load).
How would that work? If I just comment on some 8 year old question that the answer does not apply to $LATEST version of $FRAMEWORK, how would anyone with the know-how discover my question?
This truly is a new question because what is really being asked is what was the breaking change that occurred in $FRAMEWORK between the original question was answered and this latest version.
Before the node-size race we also had the clock-speed race. Eventually it was common for processors reach 2-4ghz, and after that the clock speed gains stopped being practical because as you increase clock speed you also increase energy requirements and heat.
I think the implication is that clock-speed could start increasing again. It would probably require a completely new manufacturing process, but if we assume this superconductor is legit, perhaps an older process could manufacture it.
If so, maybe we could have (just spitballing here, I have no idea) 28nm super conducting CPUs that run at a 1thz instead of 4ghz. That would be quite an improvement over today's CPUs, even with fewer transistors, I think.
There are other losses and limitation in increasing clock-speeds aside from just resistive losses, but I think they are a significant part of the current bottleneck. Other losses involve transistor switching losses, and inductive losses but I don't really know the details, and I think those details change with superconductors.
We stopped chasing clock speeds because of the physical timing limitations of gate and signal propagation. Not because of heat. Suppose you are using a 5GHz clock. Every cycle is 0.2ns. Light can only travel 6cm in that time. Electricity propagates a little slower through a conductor (and even slower through silicon). So if you are using some insanely fast clock, you are just wasting cycles waiting for signals to move across the chip.
Current processors are no longer synchronous, each part now works asynchronously and there can be several instructions waiting to be completed at once, average Intructions Per Clock are already over 1, so there is no problem waiting a little more for signal to propagate.
