Even if this was an accident, isn't it theoretically possible for one of the trustees to intentionally not provide the key to trigger the re-election? There's no guarantee that the people will vote the same. I see this as a kind of vulnerability.
Even knowing that the results of a repeat election are likely to be the same, I can easily imagine someone being petty and "losing" their key to sabotage the process as a demonstration of power. It's just human nature at it's worst.
This is casting accusation as a member of a community, without a shred of a proof.
This is also not realistic and Occam's razor applies here strongly: why sabotage your career and frankly embarrass yourself just to make a tiny election delay, based on uncertain assumptions? This doesn't pass the sniff test.
In short, I think always assuming the worst in people is not healthy and we should trust that this was indeed a honest, unfortunate mistake. This could happen to everyone.
I'm sorry. I should have made it clear that I wasn't discussing the present situation of which I know nothing about and have no reason to doubt the good faith of all involved.
I was merely expanding on the hypothetical case where bad politics overcame a theoretically sound selection process.
I don't know if they used such a method, but it is possible to provide a proof for the key before it is actually useful.
E.g. everyone provides a hash for their key first, and the actual key a some seconds later, when all the hashes for the keys have arrived. Someone is 'cheating' by claiming key loss if s/he claims the s/he lost the key during that few seconds.
The opposite is interesting to think about - for a commonly used threshold cipher, could you craft your part to secretly force a chosen plaintext regardless of the other parts?
Might make things awkward but grokipedia seems way more informative on this topic to me. But I guess I am unfamiliar with the topic so half of it could be hallucination. Curious if anyone familiar with this subject wants to weigh in?
I've been playing around with this for a few weeks. Newton is a pretty thin wrapper around mujoco-warp, which is trying to port mujoco, originally a CPU sim, over to warp on the GPU. There is also mujoco-mjx for this purpose, but using jax instead of warp. I think mjx/jax has the edge on performance because there are mature RL libraries for jax (brax) and big advantages to using Jax for everything, especially with its ability to "vmap" over each layer of abstraction. But I can see why nvidia wants to move away from IsaacLab using physX+pytorch because physX was made for games and interfacing with it through IsaacSim is a bit of a kludge. And apparently mjx isn't so accurate with collisions because of the way it has to be treated in jax. Pytorch RL works decently with newton/warp, at least they can share GPU buffers and you don't have to copy things back and forth to the CPU, however you can't optimize with cuda graphs past the newton/warp boundary because newton/warp have their own cuda graph capture scheme going on at the same time underneath.
They already have a newton branch of IsaacLab on github but its pretty early for it. I just came across a dope project today that is a different wrapper around mujoco-warp that already mimics IsaacLab's api and you can run some robot environments on it. Clean code too, very promising: https://github.com/mujocolab/mjlab.git
The article makes it sound as if magnetism arises because of a delay in the propagation of the electric field caused by a limit on the speed of light. It's kinda the other way around. Light is a alternating electric field and the speed of it's propagation is limited by the ε0 and μ0 (electric permittivity and magnetic permeability) in Maxwell's equations. From Maxwell you can derive c^2=1/(ε0*μ0). Lorentz and Einstein came along and realized that this changes all of mechanics, and that is special relativity.
Biggest single buyer. It’s an investment that SS makes. They could instead buy securities of other governments but U.S. securities have been the safest to purchase. Without SS do you think the U.S. would not be able to borrow as much as it does?
wait, we skipped the part where we found out microplastics were bad for you. concerning, yes, but plastic is relatively inert and there's no actual evidence of harm yet.
Plastic is biologically inert, but the plasticizers added to modify the qualities of plastics may not be. From what I understand, that's one of the major concerns with microplastics.
Plastics are basically all endocrine disrupting chemicals (your body confuses them for hormones, usually estrogen). Even nylon has been shown to be a EDC. BPA was by far the worst of them and wound up diffusing public concern, getting the rest completely off the hook.
That's not the whole story. Plastic is a chemical 'sponge' that soaks up contaminants from the environment (eg heavy metals, brominated flame retardants, pesticides, etc), concentrating them to many times background levels before delivering them into your body. For example household dust (which is >50% microplastics) is the primary route for brominated flame retardants to enter the human body.
And that's not even to mention intentional additives (phthalates, Bisphenol-*, BFRs again), which are far from inert.
And so are rice, broccoli, beer, wine, and brussels sprouts due to their absorption of arsenic from pesticides, mining, and other causes. The Chinese don't seem to be too concerned with it, even though it is well known.
Hey but eat meat and eggs! ALA helps to detoxify it. Not getting into the fear list on meat ;)
Extreme confidence is probably a mistake. Chronic diseases are rampant and we don't have good answers for what the causes are.
Have we been using the same exact compounds and processes and habits for 40 years? Every new advance is a chance for some new fuck up, and it takes time to realize it, if we ever do.
There's a huge range of possibilities between arsenic and "minor harm."
We have decent reason to believe they are active in the endocrine system, and pretty good reason to believe there are population-level endocrine issues (obesity and fertility).
Given that these plastics seem to accrue intergenerationally (i.e. babies are being born "poisoned" by them), an apparently minor, apparently not-very-acute issue could actually end up being a much, much, much bigger problem than any of the examples you listed.
That's incorrect, after invention of a leaded fuel, the first health concerns were raised in 1 or 2 years of production, and major heath investigation happened in 4 years time. We just lobbied (bribed) our way to continue using it regardless for half a century. And even a century later leaded fuel is widely used even in the USA, and probably even worse in other countries.
You're totally right, my choice of language should have been better. Thanks for the correction!
Is the situation all that different for plastics? I'm not sure. We've been running health studies on them for a while and the harmful effects of BPA, Teflon, PFAS, and the androgenic affects of most polymers are pretty well known at this point.
My point is mainly that how long we've been using something is not a great way to determine safety.
Your argument might have made sense if excess consumption of carbohydrate, saturated fat, and other nutrition deficient foods did not skyrocket over the same time frame.
This is a big part of the struggle with in vitro vs in vivo studies. We can have a repeatable result with in vitro effects, but can't confidently say what the macro effect will be. We might be able to say it doesn't "directly" cause none, some, or all of those, but we can't definitively say it doesn't contribute at all.
Personally I'm of the opinion that is evidence large scale studies are needed on live subjects. I'm not educated enough to know if that is feasible or reasonable, but I am confident you can't be "sure" until that is done.
There's effectively no way to test this with fully unadulterated control group. The entire planet more or less is covered in microplastics.
It's not clear how, even theoretically, you get better evidence than "this is what we see in vitro, and the effect seems analogous at population scale."
Sure, maybe there isn't, I can't argue that with my knowledge.
What I am confident on is there won't be significant societal change with that level of evidence. Most of those health issues have "easy" reasons they can be associated with (right or wrong), and it's going to be tough convincing people that in vitro effects are enough reason to significantly curtail (nevermind ban) plastics.
"Significant societal change" doesn't always have to come from getting masses of people onboard. It can also happen, and often does happen, by people entrusted with power to make decisions even in the absence of complete information.
One heuristic such a person might use would be, "gee, are we really going to take the position that if you pollute so quickly and so widespread that it becomes nearly impossible to demonstrate specific harm, that you can just keep on doing that?"
any device that doesnt need a 20gbps or higher link is better off connected to your motherboard via a usb-a to usb-c cable. the "a" connector has not been deprecated. in some ways it is the superior connector, higher mating cycles, less fragile, less likely to get ripped loose, much more torque required to bend, and so on. the "c" connector is more useful on the opposite end where you will be plugging in and out more frequently.
> The three sizes of USB connectors are the default, or standard, format intended for desktop or portable equipment, the mini intended for mobile equipment, which was deprecated when it was replaced by the thinner micro size, all of which were deprecated in USB 3.2 in favor of Type-C.
perhaps. but thats why you have the C at the other end because it doesnt make sense to be frequently plugging things in and out of the motherboard and and wearing down those connectors.
but i doubt you will get more cycles out of C in real life. that might be what the spec says but given the pitch of the pins on the C connector compared to the A, you have a world of greater tolerance to work with
If you don't frequently plug things into your mainboard, does it even matter?
> but i doubt you will get more cycles out of C in real life
You're free to doubt the designers of the USB specification and/or the manufacturer's compliance with the specification, but just logically, the part about having the springs in the plug, not the port, makes sense to me.
I've seen many broken USB-A ports in airplanes and other public charging ports with the spring connectors bent beyond recognition.
manufacturer's compliance with the specification has always been a total joke heh. i see what you're saying about the springs, but i shouldn't have brought mating cycles into the discussion. the side plugged into the motherboard should just be secure above all else. i can easily ruin any usb-c connector with just my thumb and index finger. the thickness of the A shell and its square profile prevent it from bending under torque pretty darn well.
furthermore, ive never even seen a usb-c connector at an airport or for any public use and i doubt i ever will. hell, even IEC can barely withstand that use case,i usually have to bend my prongs for the plug to stay in. usb-c not gonna make it 3 days.
reply