I think there's a big difference between "activating" a muscle and "getting utility" out of it. Sure, maybe it activates sometimes, but what does it do? Well... nothing. It's a vestigial structure.
This video from Husqvarna 2 years ago doesn't sound like it's a motor noise. Sounds more like an onboard beeper that can emit single tones. This, in my opinion, is rather disappointing.
It's possible that's some kind of motor noise, but it doesn't sound like it to me.
EDIT: I realize when I say "motor noise" there's some ambiguity. I know there isn't a gas powered engine in this little mower. Revving an engine is exactly what I expected, and this isn't that. When I reference motor noise here, I just mean sound could be produced by a servo or similar, but I don't think that's what's happening.
It’s impossible to produce cellulose and amylose in this way from barley and claim it was done safely in a protective atmosphere.
They already do this in many sweets by using sugar from wheat because it’s cheaper to produce but it makes many people with gluten allergy extremely ill.
They separate out the sugar but it’s contaminated.
A single molecule of gluten or nuts from cross contamination can make people with these allergies very ill.
Wrapping all food in our society with this stuff will lead to great suffering and danger for many. At least initially until the problem is acknowledged and fixed like in the cases of asbestos, tobacco etc
Maybe I'm being incredibly naive, but it seems like this would be trivial. Can you just start with the output hash and then essentially run the algorithms backwards? Obviously the resulting "input" would be random-ish garbage, but it seems like if all you care about is the output, you can pretty much just "pick" any data for the last step that produces the output. Then do likewise for the step prior, and so on.
As a comment above stated, part of the "input" is the initialized values:
> Initialize hash value h0 to h7: first 32 bits of the fractional parts of the square roots of the first 8 primes 2..19).
My guess is h0 to h7 change throughout the algorithm. If you perform each step in "reverse" as you suggest, "picking" any input at each step that produces the required output for that step, then you may not arrive to the correct initial state with the square roots of the first 8 primes.
It's not security through obscurity. In fact, it's the very opposite. You can see the process exactly. The reason this is secure is because the process itself doesn't work backwards. You can create a hash using this algorithm, but you'll never reverse that hash back into the original text.
I'm also wondering, how does this prevent preimaging attacks (or whatever they're called)? That is to say, what's stopping people from reliably producing output based on input?
> I'm also wondering, how does this prevent preimaging attacks (or whatever they're called)?
First, see the Wikipedia entry about preimage attacks.
Second, I am not a cryptographer but I think in practice there is a couple of things to be aware of:
- make sure slightly different inputs have wildly different outputs
- make sure no parts of the input survives
- practically speaking there are an unlimited number of inputs that map to most (all? I'm not sure how uniform the distribution of sha256 is) output (since input is unlimited and output is a short string.
- the classic preimage attack, rainbow tables, works because 1.) inputs, i.e. passwords, are often short and predictable
- in ancient times password systems didn't use salts
> That is to say, what's stopping people from reliably producing output based on input?
I assume this should be the other way around, which is what I have tried to explain above.
That would only be true if votes were a limited resource. There's no real "competition" here. Something good getting upvoted doesn't stop absolute trash from getting upvoted. donio posting something incredible wouldn't mean it would offset something awful; it would just slightly change the timeslot of the awful thing.
Articles that go deep into technical subjects generally stay on the front page for half of the time of trendy lightweight posts.
In my experience, there's typically more than one "smoking gun". The problem isn't finding one, it's eliminating all of the "smoking guns" that aren't actually related to the outage.
If I worked at an organization with many teams deploying updates multiple times per day and several same day events seemed related, I would probably also put less weight on a gradual, months-long deployment that had completed a day prior.
I asked my thinkingrock if it could think and it said yes. Really though, "thinking" is very hard to define. Do animals think? Do insects think? Do bacteria think? I'm sure somewhere we could find an example of a "living" thing that people consider to have thinking capability whose abilities are substantially more primitive than a CPU. So... why not say a CPU can think?
