This is an interesting article. It has a very strong AI accent.
I really wish I could tell how real it is. When some part of it I can tell is AI slop, how much of it is AI slop? Inside GNSS has always been a marketing rag with sometimes some interesting articles.
The author is a security researcher, so maybe poking at GPS bits makes sense, but talking about floating point bit depth? There's too much slop for me to figure out if there's anything of real interest or if this is just a hallucination.
Edit. After reading more carefully this is 100% AI slop. Inside GNSS published Steven Murdoch's chat gpt session. Maybe some data was transmitted? The only way you'll actually know is to redo the research your self. There are many fabrications / confabulations that clearly happen with AI in the text.
The code is all available and every claim is traceable back to the statistical analysis. Results are reproducible from the original data which is archived on Zenodo. Further analysis would be very welcome. https://github.com/sjmurdoch/gps-special-messages
I've worked with the guy credited in the article before, so I'll vouch for his general credibility and the underlying information likely being solid: there's good evidence for this field being some kind of encrypted data stream, probably key distribution, and the behaviour has changed over time. But the breathless LLM-tone really did make it hard to read.
Cool. Some data may have been transmitted over GPS. That's interesting and note worthy.
If only that was all that was posted.
Instead there's this stuff that makes me question Steven Murdoch's research practices. If you're willing to publish slop are his research practices slop? Can I trust any paper he creates in the future when I can tell this one has factual errors? Why should I bother reading it?
I actually think he's a good researcher from a little reading. I wish he hadn't done this.
So much AI. I stopped immediately. He might have something interesting to say, but apparently not important enough for him to write about it himself, so not important enough for me to read it either.
I have a few boxes that I switch between, but for some software it's nicer that my "main machine" be on DVI, and everything else HDMI. I may have to look at some scripting option where if the keyboard / mouse disappear (KVM switched away) change the display to use the HDMI input.
I do worry that would just add more trouble / race conditions / issues around this stuff. I feel like nvidia + linux + monitors doing anything other than staying on + attached all the time causes some headaches.
OFDMA just makes the channels smaller. Sure there are now 10 transmitters on channel 5, but there's one transmitter on channel 5.1, one on 5.2, ... and each 'channel' has 1/10th the capacity of "channel 5".
Yes, and? If a device only needs 26 tones, that's what will be assigned; if it needs 52 or 106, then that will assigned:
> RU allocations can happen with a combination of tones. For example – if there are three stations associated, then the AP can assign 106 tones to the first two users and 26 tones to the third user. The AP can also assign 52 tones to the third user. These RU allotment decisions are dynamically made by the AP based on the client’s traffic type and its available amount for transmission. The AP learns the client’s buffer status by using a periodic sounding mechanism.
> In the first scheduling interval, the AP allocates the whole 20 MHz channel—a single, 242-tone RU—to Client 1. And in the third interval, it allocates two 106-tone RUs to Client 2 and Client 3.
Why give one client more than it needs (when another client can also share the transmission time slot)? If it happens to need the entire x MHz channel, it may be given it (all the RU tones).
All my old software before AI was self documenting and didn't need comments -- it just was obvious. Today my prompts never make slop. I'm a really good driver.
But in general, I think obsessing over the monospace font you use for coding is, ultimately, bike shedding. I've used a lot of different fonts over the year, not because I was trying to find the best one, but because I used the default font of whatever tool I was using at the time, and - guess what - I was fine with it every time.
I'm really glad Hacker News disallows AI generated comments. The response I got from asking that question really is quite enlightening. Short answer: "no", long answer: "no -- fuck off", longer answer: "no -- fuck off -- if you want I can dig into whether or not you should fuck off harder"
I've been building my own tooling doing similar sorts of things -- poorly with scripts and podman / buildkit as well as LD_PRELOAD related tools, and definitely clicked over to HN comments with out reading much of the content because I thought "AI slop tool", and the site raised all my hackles as I thought I'll never touch this thing. It'll be easier to write my own than review yet another AI slop tool written by someone who loves AI.
I'm glad I read the HN comments, now I'm excited to review the source.
I really wish I could tell how real it is. When some part of it I can tell is AI slop, how much of it is AI slop? Inside GNSS has always been a marketing rag with sometimes some interesting articles.
The author is a security researcher, so maybe poking at GPS bits makes sense, but talking about floating point bit depth? There's too much slop for me to figure out if there's anything of real interest or if this is just a hallucination.
Edit. After reading more carefully this is 100% AI slop. Inside GNSS published Steven Murdoch's chat gpt session. Maybe some data was transmitted? The only way you'll actually know is to redo the research your self. There are many fabrications / confabulations that clearly happen with AI in the text.
reply