> as a basic rule of thumb, any paper on cybersecurity that does not start the discussion with a reference attack vector and listed assumptions is probably garbage.
Actionable guidance for real world decisions is not the objective of academic research. The objective is to expand the human knowledge base (which hopefully translates to something practical at some point).
If the authors have the domain expertise to weigh in on PINs, but not on attack vectors, then that is what they should do. Let someone else draw the conclusions for IT managers.
Elementus | Data Scientist | New York | Full-time | Onsite | https://elementus.io
Elementus is the universal blockchain query engine. We develop tools for financial institutions, law enforcement, and regulators to help them see past the raw blockchain data and understand the social and economic interactions taking place on-chain.
We are hiring for a creative, curious data scientist who is comfortable in rapidly changing, highly ambiguous environments. The role will involve developing new methods and algorithms to extract insights from on-chain data (bitcoin, ethereum, and others).
We use Nodejs, C++, Python. Some background in graph theory, blockchain tech is a plus, but not required.
We recently closed a $3.5m seed round that included Morgan Creek, Fidelity, and Stage 1.
If this sounds interesting, we'd love to chat. Please contact me at max at elementus.io.
Unless there has been a new development, there are no approved crypto ETFs yet. There are crypto index funds with fees of 1%-2%.
That's not a bad option if you just want some diversity with minimal thought + effort. I think this tool offers a different option. With a little bit of thought and effort, you can save on the fees and customize the risk/return profile.
I do a lot of both writing and coding and I also follow this schedule. I find coding at night to be very efficient, but when I try to write at night, I end up rewriting the same paragraph 10 times before giving up.
No idea why these activities are so different, but I feel the thought process is very different. Coding requires active concentration. I find writing to be more of a passive activity. Too much concentration, and the words stop making sense -- something like this effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation
It's also annoying to have the amp menu bar taking up space at the top. Screen real estate is scarce and another menu bar at the top is just confusing.
In Mobile Safari, it's even worse as the bottom navigation bar is present when the page loads and then stays present.
Since AMP uses an overflow technique to handle content/scrolling, the page never triggers a scroll event on the body. So not only do you see a toolbar at the top (which admittedly, slides out when you scroll down), you see the browser toolbar at the bottom (which persists!)
Actionable guidance for real world decisions is not the objective of academic research. The objective is to expand the human knowledge base (which hopefully translates to something practical at some point).
If the authors have the domain expertise to weigh in on PINs, but not on attack vectors, then that is what they should do. Let someone else draw the conclusions for IT managers.