My background is in TV SoCs, so I can definitively say that this whole industry has been a very low margin business for years. Mr. Funai, who ran the Funai brand that owns Sanyo and Magnavox brands, used to negotiate with us and was taking off fractions of pennies for certain features. That was over a decade ago...
SoCs have changed a lot since those days (waving at DivX). Yet the most important features of the last decade driving increased margins from a pure display perspective are HDR / wide color gamut, quantum dot and OLED, and even those TVs are starting to become more "mainstream" in some respects.
The other half of this is streaming services, and this is what modern SoCs can finally provide. While boxes like Roku were predicted to go the way of the dodo and haven't, most brands have an app platform that supports not only streaming media, but analytics (read: data collection) as well. Some set-top boxes / streaming players (and I increasingly suspect TVs) have microphones to collect ad impression information for advertisers, but the terms controlling this data collection will be buried in some contract of adhesion aka EULA you click through to get access. Even Android phones going by Cast devices or Apple phones going by AirPlay sinks can and often do collect this information today for Google/Apple. Remember that Vizio was already caught in a scandal fingerprinting image buffers once a second and sending that to third parties, so the flippant attitude of the interviewer is both humorous and frightening.
What the interview doesn't discuss is how far this will actually go. I, like many/.ers, will simply not connect our TVs to a network and use our player of choice, like Kodi on a Pi3 or HTPC, plus an antenna for the tuner. Today's ATSC tuners will go the way of the dodo, and in a few years they will be relegated to having a 16:9 SD-ish signal of a limited number of channels for a few years until they shut that off and ATSC 3.0 becomes your only choice. Even tuners will not be protected long-term, as various sub-committees in ATSC, EBU and others are talking about having a 5G modem in displays and set-top boxes to collect viewer information using some IoT stack even when not connected to the user's network. It won't matter if there isn't PII, as statistical correlation and deep learning with this and other data (e.g. mobile network location) will be enough to pinpoint not only your house, but who is viewing what at a given time.
As frightening as all of the above may be, it means we need to be vigilant. Security researchers need to keep on top of these privacy violations and monitor not only network traffic but wireless as well. When the 5G IoT data collection really starts rolling out, we'll have to look at the FCC filings for the devices and see which have these radios in them. I hope it doesn't get to the point where I have to start cutting traces and clipping MMCX antennas out of a display, but I'm ready to do it. We need to use privacy enhancement tools on more open platforms and at low levels of our home networks and reject the closed ecosystems and control of embedded devices. Most importantly, we need to be very vocal and very public in calling out privacy violators. Everyone is trying to establish economic rents, but it can't be at the expense of individual privacy simply because the inevitable data breaches will inevitably expose too many of us to unwarranted public scrutiny.
There are ways to protect communication links end-to-end yet allow access to messages. If an employer wants access to messages in a particular chat, that can be built in by centralizing their archival at the same time they're sent through a cryptographic chain of trust. It's not trivial, but I don't buy that unencrypted communications are the alternative for the reasons they state.
If I were Slack, I'd be much more worried about Microsoft Teams. Microsoft is pouring huge sums of money into Teams at the moment to make it the new paradigm and push for online, with the added benefit of tighter Office/O365 integration as well as integration of other pieces to make a unified communication solution. I get a bit concerned in that respect for market dominance by MS, but it is what it is.
The TV business has been in a race towards the bottom as far as margins go for more than a decade. Costs are literally down to fractions of pennies in TVs except at the very high end. Even there, costs are a big consideration given retail margins, customer support and future product development.
Given OnePlus' positioning, this isn't a smart move. They can't possibly compete on cost, and other companies are much better at differentiating their offerings.
The remnants of AT&T's ancient SS7 are still infecting voice calls today. Back then, it made sense to not authenticate caller ID information because the threat model required physical access to phone company switches and a lot of equipment to implement. It wasn't feasible.
Now that VoIP and packet-switched networks have replaced circuit-switch voice band twisted pair landlines, we still lack a way to enable secure authentication to a trusted root of who is actually calling. The FCC is supposedly looking into solutions, but implementing PKI in the network can prevent these calls from ever getting to people. Many of these scams are on VoIP gateways that have default passwords.
Normally I'm against a lot of government involvement in people's lives, but this is one place where it's required. If Congress could pass the CALM act to end annoying loudness changes in broadcast TV, the passing of which had little economic consequence, then Congress can definitely get their act together and pass a law to do the same for authenticating phone calls using PKI and removing security holes. Inaction in this area already has a tremendous negative economic consequences, particularly for the elderly and other vulnerable individuals who are defrauded systematically and who are typically more reliant on phone services due to their ease of use and familiarity.
The real tell in all of this will be what the carriers do when this is enacted. I suspect there will be tremendous resistance spearheaded by the argument that it will require equipment replacement. I'm not sure that's the case given that the magic is in firmware, but more on the system engineering side. In that case, let them put a deadline down to get their act together. Where there's a will (and a law), there's a way.
There were a lot of people whose blood work went through this scam and may have had all sorts of false negatives that caused them harm or death.
While I sympathize with the investors, its the patients that I feel far more sorry for. You can work another day to make another dollar. You can't undo the type of harm that false blood tests can create.
All cryptocurrencies are underpinned by the belief that people will trade something of value for them. That usually means currency, but it could also be material goods or intellectual property.
On top of that value, you have speculation based on other factors; in this case, scarcity and demand. The more the perceived mania continues, the more volatility there will be.
What is different here is that a number of early adopters held onto the currency, and others bought in late. That distorted people's perception of the cryptocurrency where they thought they could all make money fast. Well, lo and behold, the currency crashed since its peak, and seems to be teetering currently.
That there are systemic problems with exchanges and blockchain goes without saying. This is unlike traditional currency because the transaction costs are increasing exponentially and putting additional pressure that a normal paper currency managed by a sovereign central bank doesn't have. That reduces monetary velocity through the system and impedes cryptocurrency use for fine-grained transactions. I won't get into the back door idea or breaking the cryptography, although those might become factors in the future. These translate to additional volatility and uncertainty that hurt the value.
The other big difference between an independent cryptocurrency and a regular currency is who and what backs it. That's probably the greatest concern for The Economist and for those who favor classic economics. This is uncharted territory, and uncertainty will always be punished by the market by participatory withdrawal and diminished value. Only time will tell, but something tells me that Bitcoin and the like may be a game of musical chairs.
This from a guy whose party has sanitized the killing of tens of millions of its own people, is now ruler for life, has a social credit score to force people to behave according to the CCP's wishes, could care less about the 300 million people in abject poverty without regular access to clean water, and won't acknowledge the Tiananmen Square massacre to the point of banning the term "63+1", or 6/4.
Yeah, you can go fuck yourself Xi Jinping. We'll keep trying to show your people how the rest of the world works and hopefully they'll finish what was started in 1989.
You are correct - it's "The Alberta government". I have never once heard one single person in Alberta refer to it as "The Albertan government" no matter what their socioeconomic background.
At the outset, I just want to say how happy I am that AV1 has taken off, and how seriously it is viewed by so many technology companies as a way around H.264 and (even worse) HEVC. Particularly with respect to HEVC, there are three separate patent pools with different participants. HEVC is, in many ways, already set up to fail due to a large number of participants that participate in either none or one of the pools (see https://streaminglearningcente... for how chaotic it is). There are some other proprietary technologies such as Perseus that are out there that claim better performance than HEVC from a PSNR/SSIM perspective, but they will likely remain fringe.
What is of more concern to me is how carefully AV1 has been constructed in terms of its coding tools to avoid patent trolling and patent submarining (e.g. Rambus at JEDEC with DDR). This is a very serious and very technically complex issue, as any company could easily assert patents on AV1 if they feel there is infringement on their claims as pertains to any of the coding tools. There are increasingly limited ways of dealing with spatiotemporal entropy in non-infringing ways that do not involve exponential increases in gates or CPU cycles.
A recent and simple example of this is the MPEG-LA claiming they license patents related to the MPEG-DASH streaming framework. MPEG-DASH is, essentially, an XML schema for a streaming manifest combined with either MPEG-4 Part 12 (the MP4 container originally specified by Apple as the MOV format), or MPEG-2 Transport Streams encapsulating H.264 video. Nobody on the DASH Industry Forum really thought that MPEG-DASH would be subject to this type of activity, yet magically MPEG-LA began waiving it agreement around about two years ago.
As a result, many in the industry have held onto the virtually universally-supported HTTP Live Streaming, which is an M3U playlist with tag extensions and MPEG-2 Transport Stream container for the codecs. Even that standard developed by Apple has never become a fully ratified within the IETF, and nobody knows if the same thing will happen there either.
Incidentally, any time Google has presented VP8 or VP9 at previous conferences and is asked about patents, they avoid answering questions and the audience usually laughs. I've seen it personally, and I think it's the industry's cynicism for the various patent holders and some of their past actions. Where it becomes critical is for silicon suppliers, whose front-loaded costs are now in the neighborhood of nine figures to launch some SoCs, and for content distributors, who invest a tremendous amount of time and money encoding all of the required profiles for streaming to new codecs. Commitment to efficient hardware acceleration by them for the codec is risky, as they could easily be legally enjoined from selling their products if they didn't get their patent licenses in order, and this would also leave content holders scrambling to fall back to already-established codecs.
I will admit I'm cynical here too. While I'd love to see a patent-free open standard, I'm not optimistic that someone will not come out of the woodwork claiming infringement on a key coding tool. I wish Google and the rest of the AV1 participants luck. They'll need it.
You will work very hard, and this next year will -- my wife hates it when I say this -- feel like childbirth... - you will work 80+ hour weeks for at least the next year with no additional bonuses for anyone lower than VP level, so good luck keeping your personal life intact!
You'll look back on it and be very fond of it, but it's not going to feel great while you're in the middle of it. - if you don't get fired or quit, you get a gold star for making it through!
She says, 'What do you know about this?' I just observe, 'Honey. We love our kids. - The kids are going to feel pain and stress to toughen them up and be ready for anything in the real world!
(I wish the existing employees luck. Things were already insanely busy at HBO.)
So what if I'm listening to one of these stations with spurious emissions or exceedingly high dBm level near their broadcast area with a drifting transmitter, and an EAS message comes through on an adjacent station? Now all of a sudden, the PLL lock on the radio does the funky chicken trying to figure out what signal to lock onto and an entire area listening to the emergency message doesn't get all of it because of the pirate station. That puts lives at risk.
There's a reason we regulate spectrum. We don't want to go back to the days before the FCC when rescue ships were being sent to the middle of the North Atlantic in the winter because of fake distress calls just so we could avoid another Titanic disaster. We certainly don't want existing licensees who have paid good money and are subject to regulations and fines to be run over by unlicensed idiot operators. I have enough problems as a ham and shortwave listener dealing with RFI from poorly choked solar inverters and other garbage out there.
So while not all pirates are harmful, they most certainly can be at the wrong moment. There needs to be a crackdown and proper enforcement by the FCC.
As a former lead ASIC designer, I can say this is one of the most ambitious projects likely ever undertaken in EDA. Companies like Cadence, Mentor and Synopsys have been working on these problems for literally decades now. Everyone wants an easy solution for push-button design, but it is hardly that simple. Consider the following:
- Synthesis from RTL-to-gate level
- Functional design rule checks
- Place and route, including clock routing, PLLs/DLLs, etc.
- Timing extraction and static timing analysis
- I/O/SSO and core power
- Internal signal integrity and re-layout
- Test insertion and test vector generation
- Formal verification
- Functional verification
- Packaging and ball-out/bonding, especially with core I/O
- Physical design rule checks / Netlist vs. layout checks
A suite of tools that does all of this costs into the millions of dollars today, and is really a subscription as there are always bugs and improvements to be made. It also assumes physical design rule decks from the silicon vendors that have gone extensive characterization on limits such as minimum feature widths and notch rules can yield to a sufficient level economically, and that the gate and hard IP/mixed IP libraries have been validated. Front end functional design often requires re-architecture due to considerations when physically implementing the chip. All of this, of course, presumes that we don't run into additional phenomena that were irrelevant at larger process nodes (e.g. at ~250nm/180nm, wire delay dominated gate delay, and at 90nm/65nm, RC signal integrity models gave way to RLC, plus power/clock gating, multi-gate finFETs vs. single-gate planar past 22nm, etc.).
A push-button tool would have to take all of this into consideration. But let's face it...as well-intended as this is, you probably need another couple of orders of magnitude of money thrown at this to even begin succeeding under the fundamental assumption you don't have additional phenomena like alternatives to manufacturing. And that's the fundamental catch that is not captured in the article: we are chasing an ever-changing animal called process technology advancement that has created issues for us over the last few decades and likely will continue until we reach the limit of physics as we can manipulated them.
Bottom line: love the idealism, but don't buy into this hype with this piddle of investment.
At some point, you have to start asking why you need certain quality of experience in limited environments, and what infrastructure it takes to get there.
The biggest ongoing cost for streaming movies today is CDN storage, in the sense of having enough bitrates and resolutions to be able to accommodate all target devices and connection speeds. As much as people would like to deliver an HD picture to a remote village in the Philippines over a mobile connection on a feature phone, it isn't feasible at the moment for two reasons: they don't need or care about that level of experience, and it isn't technically feasible. The goal of CDN storage is to ensure the edge delivers the content, and the industry has toyed with real-time edge transcoding/transrating to address some of these issues, but fundamentally we are dropping asymptotically to a point on visual quality for a given bitrate and amount of computing power that a codec can deliver at the playback device.
In that sense, I'm shocked that Anne's post didn't mention Netflix's own VMAF, which is a composite measure of different flavors of PSNR, SSIM and some deep learning. But even here, the fundamental is that we are still using block-based codecs for operations simply because of the fundamental nature of most video, i.e. objects moving around on a background. I'm also shocked that Anne didn't discuss alternative coding methods like wavelet-based (e.g. JPEG 2000), but - again - these approaches have their own limitations and don't address interframe encoding in the same way that a block-based codec can. If there was a novel approach to coding psychovisually-equivalent video that would address computing power, bitrate and quality reasonably, I believe it would have been brought forward already.
I think 5G deserves a big mention here that was lacking in Anne's post, because faster connections may solve many of the types of issues that affect perceived visual quality at low bitrates. Get more bandwidth, and you have a better experience. Hopefully 5G will proliferate quickly, but this will be tricky in the developing world where its inherently decentralized nature and the political environments will make its ubiquitous deployment a serious challenge.
In the end, we're all fighting entropy, particularly when it comes to encoding video. Our ability to perceive video is affected by an imperfect system - the human eye and brain. That's why we've made such gains in digital video since the MPEG-1 days. But the fantasies of ubiquitous HD video to everyone in the world on 100kbps connections are just that. When you're struggling to get by and don't have good health care or clean drinking water, the value of streaming high-quality video isn't there from a business perspective, much less a technical perspective. Everyone will get an experience relative to the capabilities of technology and the value it brings to them accordingly. All else is idealistic pipe dreams until otherwise proven.
TL;DR: The selection process is random enough for its purpose, the type of attack proposed would already require access to the data which could be manipulated anyway, and this story is bunk.
When someone says that something is "random" what they really mean is that, given a finite number of possible valid values "N", that every attempt to predict that value will result in the correct value only 1/N times over an essentially infinite period of time.
Nominally, random numbers are generated through a true random seed that comes from sources such as radioactive decay, cosmic background radiation, ring oscillator or other effectively chaotic process. This is fed into a pseudorandom number generator which is a giant shift register with specified taps to generate what are nominally random numbers.
Are the implementations screwed up? Sure they are. Can they be influenced deterministically? Of course. Can this be done usefully? Not really given the value of the targets involved and the amount of infiltration required to get there. I emphasize this last point because these professors are indicating that someone could influence the random number generator. Well guess what guys? You would need access to the computer running the spreadsheet anyway, which means you could already do whatever you want to rearrange the results. Why would they waste their time influencing the RNG deterministically?
This story is muckraking bunk by people who again don't really want people to understand security as much as they want to stamp a name for themselves. I'd be much more concerned that this is being handled in a spreadsheet rather than in an air-gapped database infrastructure.
Traditionally, you had a pre-mixed channel bed like 5.1 (AC-3, E-AC-3, MLP and AC-4), and 7.1 (supported by E-AC-3, MLP and AC-4). With the introduction of audio objects in 3D space, E-AC-3, MLP and AC-4 are extended - and that is what Atmos basically is.
The problem is how to manage loudness when you have a channel bed and/or objects. E-AC-3, for example, had a substream type originally reserved for future use - in this case, implementing Atmos. Since E-AC-3-based Atmos is backwards compatible with legacy E-AC-3 decoders, Dolby has had to do some tricks to the metadata to insert the objects and keep loudness managed. This can only be accomplished at the renderer, and it requires tight control of the metadata to manage loudness consistently.
When you get into third-party upmixers, they do all sorts of awful things (*cough*Neural*cough*). Two things they can do due to "artistic" interpretation are to improperly locate the audio in 3D space, and mix in the incorrect level the audio that goes into the speakers. Because of differences in perception in loudness depending on location around your head, and because you aren't mixing the right level of audio at/across a given speaker, the original renderer's interpretation of loudness metadata and location metadata is incorrect. This leads to potentially disturbing variations in loudness and confusion in location of content that is the fundamental basis for Dolby providing an entire Atmos system from authoring to rendering, end-to-end.
The only place upmixers typically exist in devices anyway is in AV receivers and soundbars. Yes, they can exist in the broadcast chain somewhere before encoding and transmission, but broadcasters should know to manage that experience any time object-based audio is in play. As for the rest, Dolby already offers its own upmixer that works with the Atmos renderer. There really is no good reason to go outside of this, and licensees of Dolby technologies are only degrading the end user experience by doing this.
Again, Dolby doesn't care per se whether someone else is using another system, be it DTS or Barco or Fraunhofer. All they care about is that the content owners and distributors don't have complaints because of this. Certain folks who provide premium content, such as HBO, are huge sticklers for audio quality and have been pioneers since the beginning. If they're investing in Atmos, they don't want the downstream experience affected and so Dolby is really doing their bidding ultimately.
So no, there's no conspiracy and Dolby isn't doing this to screw anyone else over. "Blame" the content owners if you want to blame anyone, but Dolby is just trying to provide a consistent experience that has eluded folks for decades now. If you want proof of that, go watch 100 different videos from any large free streaming site and tell me that you won't touch the volume control.
It remains to be seen how much Microsoft has paid for GitHub, but why pay anything if they're unprofitable?
I keep seeing the same behavior that happened during the first dotcom boom - companies valued at stupid multiples of "earnings", including what are technically negative earnings, being valued far in excess of their worth. A company is only worth its future profits discounted at the rate of the next best investment of that money, minus its initial and ongoing investments. The longer it takes to return a profit, the exponentially more difficult it is to recover the initial investment. Only a fundamental change or an external factor like currency inflation can distort that picture into a supposedly rosy one.
Perhaps GitHub can have some of its cost structures reduced by riding on Microsoft's coattails. Perhaps there's some breakthrough that Microsoft can see with them, although I don't think there's a tremendous synergy there. The basic model has been there before (SourceForge), and it could technically be duplicated again by someone else. Many developers/repos will simply bail due to Microsoft's history of changing business terms. Heck, they rolled "Teams" out which is supposed to compete with Slack.
More power to the current owners of GitHub if they get bought out, as it's a great tool. I just think P.T. Barnum really was right, and I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop in this latest boom.
The vendetta against Gaddafi after he had capitulated to giving up his nuclear weapons program is the primary reason NK hasn't given up its weapons program.
It will probably take the withdrawl of US forces from SK and aid to NK, and the formal acknowledgment of the continuation of the current NK regime in order to denuclearize NK. Even then, I wouldn't be certain they don't retain an actual nuke or two secretly now that they have them. This still probably won't address the effectively bigger threat of all of the NK artillery pointed at SK.
Facebook has sold everyone down the river. Republicans, Democrats, you name it, it all goes down to the highest bidder as to who gets the information about the opposition. Meanwhile, they promote stories that get people pissed off and riled up from all sides so that they comment, load pages, check for updates and (surprise!) that enhanced engagement sell more ads and promoted pages/groups/whatever.
They don't give a damn about anyone's privacy as long as it can be exchanged for money. This is controlled opposition, and they want us to be the pawns in that game.
I misspoke when I said all, and don't believe that cryptocurrency is immune to total collapse; indeed, we have seen some very high-profile failures for a number of different reasons. What I am saying is that many cryptocurrencies will persist even in more marginal form as ways for exchange of value outside of traditional control of currency and outside of the ability for the investment banks to be able to play a role in them. One specific corollary to this is that I also believe that they will increasingly be used by criminal organizations to launder money which, in and of itself, is a serious problem for law enforcement. Of course, when you have an organization that advised an entire country (Greece) on how to effectively hide its true fiscal condition, one has to bear in mind where the criminality actually exists here.
The high rates of return due to speculative value are already disappearing rapidly. Goldman missed the boat, and I believe their statements are a way to rationalize to their investors their inability to get in on the ground floor of these opportunities. They're probably right that many of these cryptocurrencies are going to "disappear" inasmuch as they are widely traded commodities, but as long as there are people willing to exchange real goods or currency for cryptocurrency, they by definition have a non-zero value. More importantly, I think we will see a significant slowdown in new cryptocurrencies.
Goldman is self-interested in eschewing a method of financial transactions where it does not have the ability to control or extract value out of. It got late to the party and is SOL as far as most cryptocurrencies go.
That said, most cryptocurrencies are substantially overvalued because the underlying value of any currency - crypto or otherwise - has to be backed up by some type of economy. The USD used to be on the gold standard, and only started inflating substantially after it was taken off even though a not-insubstantial portion of that value is in services and intellectual property rather than goods. The inflation of the value of the currency is a natural side-effect of a number of factors, but the ones that are most relevant in this discussion are disparate classes of valuable assets (physical and non-physical), the participants interacting with the currency, and speculation. Also remember that the value of cryptocurrencies is also being exchanges for other currencies, so there are also transaction costs and the actual value of those currencies relative to the cryptocurrency.
In any event, if we use those measures, the inherent value of any currency is the value of the actual goods and services tempered by these factors. That there has been speculation driving up the price is obvious. More importantly, we cannot state the value of all cryptocurrencies is zero strictly because of speculation, because cryptocurrency value is based on the fact that there are people are still willing to exchange goods, services and other valuables including paper currencies in exchange for cryptocurrency!
Goldman is wrong. Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are here to stay. What isn't wrong is the analysis that states there is overinflated value in the cryptocurrency. We can, of course, also say that of the inflated value of today's normal paper currencies backed by central banks, including speculation with various instruments and the perception of their underlying value. It's the same reason I can purchase currency futures and forwards for common currencies versus requiring special instruments like letters of credit for currencies of little value or with little trade with the currency of question (e.g. try to find a forward for Turkish Lira versus Burundian Francs). The only real difference is how that transaction happens.
And since Goldman is cut out, you better believe that they and JP Morgan and all of the investment banks are doing anything they can to keep themselves relevant in this brave new world of cryptocurrency. Spread FUD, use existing political connections to regulate or shut down cryptocurrency use, whatever. It's just that this time it really may not work.
The three reasons that anyone keeps getting SWAT teams sent to them are the following three factors that must be addressed:
1. Caller ID - it's broken. Unauthenticated caller ID and caller ID spoofing should be treated as a crime since scam artists continue to take over unprotected VoIP gateways. Nothing should be connected to the PSTN without a certificate issued by the PSTN provider, period. This way there's at least some traceability and requires someone to have come on premises or seriously violated the chain of trust far beyond the skiddie level that these little bastards engage in.
2. Police attitudes - militarization of police is rampant with surplus war equipment like MRAPS, Hollywood movie style takedowns and insufficiently-vetted police officers with mental stability issues. Some modicum of rational assessment of a situation without automatically deploying people is necessary. Laser listening devices on windows, drones, or maybe just walking up to the door. It can't be break in, throw flashbangs and yell like a lunatic getting the innocent occupants to play Simon says until they can't comply and someone innocent gets shot any more.
3. Punishment - this one is simple. You SWAT, you get twenty years for each instance consecutive. Someone dies because of a swatting, you're guilty of murder and you get life imprisonment. But wait, you say you have some kind of mental disability? Well no problem, you'll just be committed to a mental facility until your condition is eliminated without drugs. Oh, and are you a provider of a gateway to the PSTN or other services that connect to police and don't work to get this done? You lose your license to operate.
So many people, including myself, are tired of this nonsense. Legislators, law enforcement and telecom companies need to start working together to prevent these things. Otherwise I say they should all be held complicit along with the perpetrators of SWAT incidents in the crimes. It is sheer lunacy that this hasn't been addressed at multiple levels yet.
Wire harnesses are a critical component to vehicle safety. Wires that can degrade during the normal service life of a vehicle can be deadly. Think about a wire harness with insulation that's been eaten that controls the ABS, fuel injection or an airflow sensor, and you hit a bump in the road and it shorts. Now you lose power or braking. Are we willing to have someone's vehicle fail and the people seriously hurt or dead because of a fundamental design flaw?
I've worked on my own cars for years and seen some really stupid compromises and designs that make regular service difficult or results in failures just outside the warranty period. This, however, takes the cake, and we need to stand up to this by declaring the insulation issue a fundamental safety issue. I'm now thinking about mitigation strategies beyond my standard maintenance that neither I nor anyone else shouldn't have to think about, like underhood blinking lights, sprays, capsaicin tapes, etc..
I would encourage anyone with one of these vehicles to file a NHTSA complaint stating that soy wire harnesses should be banned and recalls instituted to remedy the problem by either (a) replacing the harnesses with standard synthetic non-edible polymers as appropriate to the specific application, or (b) providing coatings that provably prevent rodents from consuming the insulation over the lifespan of the vehicle. We should also inform our congresscritters about this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
My background is in TV SoCs, so I can definitively say that this whole industry has been a very low margin business for years. Mr. Funai, who ran the Funai brand that owns Sanyo and Magnavox brands, used to negotiate with us and was taking off fractions of pennies for certain features. That was over a decade ago...
/.ers, will simply not connect our TVs to a network and use our player of choice, like Kodi on a Pi3 or HTPC, plus an antenna for the tuner. Today's ATSC tuners will go the way of the dodo, and in a few years they will be relegated to having a 16:9 SD-ish signal of a limited number of channels for a few years until they shut that off and ATSC 3.0 becomes your only choice. Even tuners will not be protected long-term, as various sub-committees in ATSC, EBU and others are talking about having a 5G modem in displays and set-top boxes to collect viewer information using some IoT stack even when not connected to the user's network. It won't matter if there isn't PII, as statistical correlation and deep learning with this and other data (e.g. mobile network location) will be enough to pinpoint not only your house, but who is viewing what at a given time.
SoCs have changed a lot since those days (waving at DivX). Yet the most important features of the last decade driving increased margins from a pure display perspective are HDR / wide color gamut, quantum dot and OLED, and even those TVs are starting to become more "mainstream" in some respects.
The other half of this is streaming services, and this is what modern SoCs can finally provide. While boxes like Roku were predicted to go the way of the dodo and haven't, most brands have an app platform that supports not only streaming media, but analytics (read: data collection) as well. Some set-top boxes / streaming players (and I increasingly suspect TVs) have microphones to collect ad impression information for advertisers, but the terms controlling this data collection will be buried in some contract of adhesion aka EULA you click through to get access. Even Android phones going by Cast devices or Apple phones going by AirPlay sinks can and often do collect this information today for Google/Apple. Remember that Vizio was already caught in a scandal fingerprinting image buffers once a second and sending that to third parties, so the flippant attitude of the interviewer is both humorous and frightening.
What the interview doesn't discuss is how far this will actually go. I, like many
As frightening as all of the above may be, it means we need to be vigilant. Security researchers need to keep on top of these privacy violations and monitor not only network traffic but wireless as well. When the 5G IoT data collection really starts rolling out, we'll have to look at the FCC filings for the devices and see which have these radios in them. I hope it doesn't get to the point where I have to start cutting traces and clipping MMCX antennas out of a display, but I'm ready to do it. We need to use privacy enhancement tools on more open platforms and at low levels of our home networks and reject the closed ecosystems and control of embedded devices. Most importantly, we need to be very vocal and very public in calling out privacy violators. Everyone is trying to establish economic rents, but it can't be at the expense of individual privacy simply because the inevitable data breaches will inevitably expose too many of us to unwarranted public scrutiny.
There are ways to protect communication links end-to-end yet allow access to messages. If an employer wants access to messages in a particular chat, that can be built in by centralizing their archival at the same time they're sent through a cryptographic chain of trust. It's not trivial, but I don't buy that unencrypted communications are the alternative for the reasons they state.
If I were Slack, I'd be much more worried about Microsoft Teams. Microsoft is pouring huge sums of money into Teams at the moment to make it the new paradigm and push for online, with the added benefit of tighter Office/O365 integration as well as integration of other pieces to make a unified communication solution. I get a bit concerned in that respect for market dominance by MS, but it is what it is.
The TV business has been in a race towards the bottom as far as margins go for more than a decade. Costs are literally down to fractions of pennies in TVs except at the very high end. Even there, costs are a big consideration given retail margins, customer support and future product development.
Given OnePlus' positioning, this isn't a smart move. They can't possibly compete on cost, and other companies are much better at differentiating their offerings.
Ask the idiots who wrote in and on Mill Valley city council what the difference is, and if they have scientific evidence corroborating health dangers.
This is the most aggravating thing about California...it's all about science until it isn't.
The remnants of AT&T's ancient SS7 are still infecting voice calls today. Back then, it made sense to not authenticate caller ID information because the threat model required physical access to phone company switches and a lot of equipment to implement. It wasn't feasible.
Now that VoIP and packet-switched networks have replaced circuit-switch voice band twisted pair landlines, we still lack a way to enable secure authentication to a trusted root of who is actually calling. The FCC is supposedly looking into solutions, but implementing PKI in the network can prevent these calls from ever getting to people. Many of these scams are on VoIP gateways that have default passwords.
Normally I'm against a lot of government involvement in people's lives, but this is one place where it's required. If Congress could pass the CALM act to end annoying loudness changes in broadcast TV, the passing of which had little economic consequence, then Congress can definitely get their act together and pass a law to do the same for authenticating phone calls using PKI and removing security holes. Inaction in this area already has a tremendous negative economic consequences, particularly for the elderly and other vulnerable individuals who are defrauded systematically and who are typically more reliant on phone services due to their ease of use and familiarity.
The real tell in all of this will be what the carriers do when this is enacted. I suspect there will be tremendous resistance spearheaded by the argument that it will require equipment replacement. I'm not sure that's the case given that the magic is in firmware, but more on the system engineering side. In that case, let them put a deadline down to get their act together. Where there's a will (and a law), there's a way.
There were a lot of people whose blood work went through this scam and may have had all sorts of false negatives that caused them harm or death.
While I sympathize with the investors, its the patients that I feel far more sorry for. You can work another day to make another dollar. You can't undo the type of harm that false blood tests can create.
when he said this...
All cryptocurrencies are underpinned by the belief that people will trade something of value for them. That usually means currency, but it could also be material goods or intellectual property.
On top of that value, you have speculation based on other factors; in this case, scarcity and demand. The more the perceived mania continues, the more volatility there will be.
What is different here is that a number of early adopters held onto the currency, and others bought in late. That distorted people's perception of the cryptocurrency where they thought they could all make money fast. Well, lo and behold, the currency crashed since its peak, and seems to be teetering currently.
That there are systemic problems with exchanges and blockchain goes without saying. This is unlike traditional currency because the transaction costs are increasing exponentially and putting additional pressure that a normal paper currency managed by a sovereign central bank doesn't have. That reduces monetary velocity through the system and impedes cryptocurrency use for fine-grained transactions. I won't get into the back door idea or breaking the cryptography, although those might become factors in the future. These translate to additional volatility and uncertainty that hurt the value.
The other big difference between an independent cryptocurrency and a regular currency is who and what backs it. That's probably the greatest concern for The Economist and for those who favor classic economics. This is uncharted territory, and uncertainty will always be punished by the market by participatory withdrawal and diminished value. Only time will tell, but something tells me that Bitcoin and the like may be a game of musical chairs.
This from a guy whose party has sanitized the killing of tens of millions of its own people, is now ruler for life, has a social credit score to force people to behave according to the CCP's wishes, could care less about the 300 million people in abject poverty without regular access to clean water, and won't acknowledge the Tiananmen Square massacre to the point of banning the term "63+1", or 6/4.
Yeah, you can go fuck yourself Xi Jinping. We'll keep trying to show your people how the rest of the world works and hopefully they'll finish what was started in 1989.
You are correct - it's "The Alberta government". I have never once heard one single person in Alberta refer to it as "The Albertan government" no matter what their socioeconomic background.
At the outset, I just want to say how happy I am that AV1 has taken off, and how seriously it is viewed by so many technology companies as a way around H.264 and (even worse) HEVC. Particularly with respect to HEVC, there are three separate patent pools with different participants. HEVC is, in many ways, already set up to fail due to a large number of participants that participate in either none or one of the pools (see https://streaminglearningcente... for how chaotic it is). There are some other proprietary technologies such as Perseus that are out there that claim better performance than HEVC from a PSNR/SSIM perspective, but they will likely remain fringe.
What is of more concern to me is how carefully AV1 has been constructed in terms of its coding tools to avoid patent trolling and patent submarining (e.g. Rambus at JEDEC with DDR). This is a very serious and very technically complex issue, as any company could easily assert patents on AV1 if they feel there is infringement on their claims as pertains to any of the coding tools. There are increasingly limited ways of dealing with spatiotemporal entropy in non-infringing ways that do not involve exponential increases in gates or CPU cycles.
A recent and simple example of this is the MPEG-LA claiming they license patents related to the MPEG-DASH streaming framework. MPEG-DASH is, essentially, an XML schema for a streaming manifest combined with either MPEG-4 Part 12 (the MP4 container originally specified by Apple as the MOV format), or MPEG-2 Transport Streams encapsulating H.264 video. Nobody on the DASH Industry Forum really thought that MPEG-DASH would be subject to this type of activity, yet magically MPEG-LA began waiving it agreement around about two years ago.
As a result, many in the industry have held onto the virtually universally-supported HTTP Live Streaming, which is an M3U playlist with tag extensions and MPEG-2 Transport Stream container for the codecs. Even that standard developed by Apple has never become a fully ratified within the IETF, and nobody knows if the same thing will happen there either.
Incidentally, any time Google has presented VP8 or VP9 at previous conferences and is asked about patents, they avoid answering questions and the audience usually laughs. I've seen it personally, and I think it's the industry's cynicism for the various patent holders and some of their past actions. Where it becomes critical is for silicon suppliers, whose front-loaded costs are now in the neighborhood of nine figures to launch some SoCs, and for content distributors, who invest a tremendous amount of time and money encoding all of the required profiles for streaming to new codecs. Commitment to efficient hardware acceleration by them for the codec is risky, as they could easily be legally enjoined from selling their products if they didn't get their patent licenses in order, and this would also leave content holders scrambling to fall back to already-established codecs.
I will admit I'm cynical here too. While I'd love to see a patent-free open standard, I'm not optimistic that someone will not come out of the woodwork claiming infringement on a key coding tool. I wish Google and the rest of the AV1 participants luck. They'll need it.
You will work very hard, and this next year will -- my wife hates it when I say this -- feel like childbirth... - you will work 80+ hour weeks for at least the next year with no additional bonuses for anyone lower than VP level, so good luck keeping your personal life intact!
You'll look back on it and be very fond of it, but it's not going to feel great while you're in the middle of it. - if you don't get fired or quit, you get a gold star for making it through!
She says, 'What do you know about this?' I just observe, 'Honey. We love our kids. - The kids are going to feel pain and stress to toughen them up and be ready for anything in the real world!
(I wish the existing employees luck. Things were already insanely busy at HBO.)
So what if I'm listening to one of these stations with spurious emissions or exceedingly high dBm level near their broadcast area with a drifting transmitter, and an EAS message comes through on an adjacent station? Now all of a sudden, the PLL lock on the radio does the funky chicken trying to figure out what signal to lock onto and an entire area listening to the emergency message doesn't get all of it because of the pirate station. That puts lives at risk.
There's a reason we regulate spectrum. We don't want to go back to the days before the FCC when rescue ships were being sent to the middle of the North Atlantic in the winter because of fake distress calls just so we could avoid another Titanic disaster. We certainly don't want existing licensees who have paid good money and are subject to regulations and fines to be run over by unlicensed idiot operators. I have enough problems as a ham and shortwave listener dealing with RFI from poorly choked solar inverters and other garbage out there.
So while not all pirates are harmful, they most certainly can be at the wrong moment. There needs to be a crackdown and proper enforcement by the FCC.
As a former lead ASIC designer, I can say this is one of the most ambitious projects likely ever undertaken in EDA. Companies like Cadence, Mentor and Synopsys have been working on these problems for literally decades now. Everyone wants an easy solution for push-button design, but it is hardly that simple. Consider the following:
- Synthesis from RTL-to-gate level
- Functional design rule checks
- Place and route, including clock routing, PLLs/DLLs, etc.
- Timing extraction and static timing analysis
- I/O/SSO and core power
- Internal signal integrity and re-layout
- Test insertion and test vector generation
- Formal verification
- Functional verification
- Packaging and ball-out/bonding, especially with core I/O
- Physical design rule checks / Netlist vs. layout checks
A suite of tools that does all of this costs into the millions of dollars today, and is really a subscription as there are always bugs and improvements to be made. It also assumes physical design rule decks from the silicon vendors that have gone extensive characterization on limits such as minimum feature widths and notch rules can yield to a sufficient level economically, and that the gate and hard IP/mixed IP libraries have been validated. Front end functional design often requires re-architecture due to considerations when physically implementing the chip. All of this, of course, presumes that we don't run into additional phenomena that were irrelevant at larger process nodes (e.g. at ~250nm/180nm, wire delay dominated gate delay, and at 90nm/65nm, RC signal integrity models gave way to RLC, plus power/clock gating, multi-gate finFETs vs. single-gate planar past 22nm, etc.).
A push-button tool would have to take all of this into consideration. But let's face it...as well-intended as this is, you probably need another couple of orders of magnitude of money thrown at this to even begin succeeding under the fundamental assumption you don't have additional phenomena like alternatives to manufacturing. And that's the fundamental catch that is not captured in the article: we are chasing an ever-changing animal called process technology advancement that has created issues for us over the last few decades and likely will continue until we reach the limit of physics as we can manipulated them.
Bottom line: love the idealism, but don't buy into this hype with this piddle of investment.
Welcome to the new Slashdot. Rob Malda sends his warm regards.
At some point, you have to start asking why you need certain quality of experience in limited environments, and what infrastructure it takes to get there.
The biggest ongoing cost for streaming movies today is CDN storage, in the sense of having enough bitrates and resolutions to be able to accommodate all target devices and connection speeds. As much as people would like to deliver an HD picture to a remote village in the Philippines over a mobile connection on a feature phone, it isn't feasible at the moment for two reasons: they don't need or care about that level of experience, and it isn't technically feasible. The goal of CDN storage is to ensure the edge delivers the content, and the industry has toyed with real-time edge transcoding/transrating to address some of these issues, but fundamentally we are dropping asymptotically to a point on visual quality for a given bitrate and amount of computing power that a codec can deliver at the playback device.
In that sense, I'm shocked that Anne's post didn't mention Netflix's own VMAF, which is a composite measure of different flavors of PSNR, SSIM and some deep learning. But even here, the fundamental is that we are still using block-based codecs for operations simply because of the fundamental nature of most video, i.e. objects moving around on a background. I'm also shocked that Anne didn't discuss alternative coding methods like wavelet-based (e.g. JPEG 2000), but - again - these approaches have their own limitations and don't address interframe encoding in the same way that a block-based codec can. If there was a novel approach to coding psychovisually-equivalent video that would address computing power, bitrate and quality reasonably, I believe it would have been brought forward already.
I think 5G deserves a big mention here that was lacking in Anne's post, because faster connections may solve many of the types of issues that affect perceived visual quality at low bitrates. Get more bandwidth, and you have a better experience. Hopefully 5G will proliferate quickly, but this will be tricky in the developing world where its inherently decentralized nature and the political environments will make its ubiquitous deployment a serious challenge.
In the end, we're all fighting entropy, particularly when it comes to encoding video. Our ability to perceive video is affected by an imperfect system - the human eye and brain. That's why we've made such gains in digital video since the MPEG-1 days. But the fantasies of ubiquitous HD video to everyone in the world on 100kbps connections are just that. When you're struggling to get by and don't have good health care or clean drinking water, the value of streaming high-quality video isn't there from a business perspective, much less a technical perspective. Everyone will get an experience relative to the capabilities of technology and the value it brings to them accordingly. All else is idealistic pipe dreams until otherwise proven.
TL;DR: The selection process is random enough for its purpose, the type of attack proposed would already require access to the data which could be manipulated anyway, and this story is bunk. When someone says that something is "random" what they really mean is that, given a finite number of possible valid values "N", that every attempt to predict that value will result in the correct value only 1/N times over an essentially infinite period of time.
Nominally, random numbers are generated through a true random seed that comes from sources such as radioactive decay, cosmic background radiation, ring oscillator or other effectively chaotic process. This is fed into a pseudorandom number generator which is a giant shift register with specified taps to generate what are nominally random numbers.
Are the implementations screwed up? Sure they are. Can they be influenced deterministically? Of course. Can this be done usefully? Not really given the value of the targets involved and the amount of infiltration required to get there. I emphasize this last point because these professors are indicating that someone could influence the random number generator. Well guess what guys? You would need access to the computer running the spreadsheet anyway, which means you could already do whatever you want to rearrange the results. Why would they waste their time influencing the RNG deterministically?
This story is muckraking bunk by people who again don't really want people to understand security as much as they want to stamp a name for themselves. I'd be much more concerned that this is being handled in a spreadsheet rather than in an air-gapped database infrastructure.
Atmos is a system, not a codec.
Traditionally, you had a pre-mixed channel bed like 5.1 (AC-3, E-AC-3, MLP and AC-4), and 7.1 (supported by E-AC-3, MLP and AC-4). With the introduction of audio objects in 3D space, E-AC-3, MLP and AC-4 are extended - and that is what Atmos basically is.
The problem is how to manage loudness when you have a channel bed and/or objects. E-AC-3, for example, had a substream type originally reserved for future use - in this case, implementing Atmos. Since E-AC-3-based Atmos is backwards compatible with legacy E-AC-3 decoders, Dolby has had to do some tricks to the metadata to insert the objects and keep loudness managed. This can only be accomplished at the renderer, and it requires tight control of the metadata to manage loudness consistently.
When you get into third-party upmixers, they do all sorts of awful things (*cough*Neural*cough*). Two things they can do due to "artistic" interpretation are to improperly locate the audio in 3D space, and mix in the incorrect level the audio that goes into the speakers. Because of differences in perception in loudness depending on location around your head, and because you aren't mixing the right level of audio at/across a given speaker, the original renderer's interpretation of loudness metadata and location metadata is incorrect. This leads to potentially disturbing variations in loudness and confusion in location of content that is the fundamental basis for Dolby providing an entire Atmos system from authoring to rendering, end-to-end.
The only place upmixers typically exist in devices anyway is in AV receivers and soundbars. Yes, they can exist in the broadcast chain somewhere before encoding and transmission, but broadcasters should know to manage that experience any time object-based audio is in play. As for the rest, Dolby already offers its own upmixer that works with the Atmos renderer. There really is no good reason to go outside of this, and licensees of Dolby technologies are only degrading the end user experience by doing this.
Again, Dolby doesn't care per se whether someone else is using another system, be it DTS or Barco or Fraunhofer. All they care about is that the content owners and distributors don't have complaints because of this. Certain folks who provide premium content, such as HBO, are huge sticklers for audio quality and have been pioneers since the beginning. If they're investing in Atmos, they don't want the downstream experience affected and so Dolby is really doing their bidding ultimately.
So no, there's no conspiracy and Dolby isn't doing this to screw anyone else over. "Blame" the content owners if you want to blame anyone, but Dolby is just trying to provide a consistent experience that has eluded folks for decades now. If you want proof of that, go watch 100 different videos from any large free streaming site and tell me that you won't touch the volume control.
It remains to be seen how much Microsoft has paid for GitHub, but why pay anything if they're unprofitable?
I keep seeing the same behavior that happened during the first dotcom boom - companies valued at stupid multiples of "earnings", including what are technically negative earnings, being valued far in excess of their worth. A company is only worth its future profits discounted at the rate of the next best investment of that money, minus its initial and ongoing investments. The longer it takes to return a profit, the exponentially more difficult it is to recover the initial investment. Only a fundamental change or an external factor like currency inflation can distort that picture into a supposedly rosy one.
Perhaps GitHub can have some of its cost structures reduced by riding on Microsoft's coattails. Perhaps there's some breakthrough that Microsoft can see with them, although I don't think there's a tremendous synergy there. The basic model has been there before (SourceForge), and it could technically be duplicated again by someone else. Many developers/repos will simply bail due to Microsoft's history of changing business terms. Heck, they rolled "Teams" out which is supposed to compete with Slack.
More power to the current owners of GitHub if they get bought out, as it's a great tool. I just think P.T. Barnum really was right, and I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop in this latest boom.
The vendetta against Gaddafi after he had capitulated to giving up his nuclear weapons program is the primary reason NK hasn't given up its weapons program.
It will probably take the withdrawl of US forces from SK and aid to NK, and the formal acknowledgment of the continuation of the current NK regime in order to denuclearize NK. Even then, I wouldn't be certain they don't retain an actual nuke or two secretly now that they have them. This still probably won't address the effectively bigger threat of all of the NK artillery pointed at SK.
Facebook has sold everyone down the river. Republicans, Democrats, you name it, it all goes down to the highest bidder as to who gets the information about the opposition. Meanwhile, they promote stories that get people pissed off and riled up from all sides so that they comment, load pages, check for updates and (surprise!) that enhanced engagement sell more ads and promoted pages/groups/whatever. They don't give a damn about anyone's privacy as long as it can be exchanged for money. This is controlled opposition, and they want us to be the pawns in that game.
I misspoke when I said all, and don't believe that cryptocurrency is immune to total collapse; indeed, we have seen some very high-profile failures for a number of different reasons. What I am saying is that many cryptocurrencies will persist even in more marginal form as ways for exchange of value outside of traditional control of currency and outside of the ability for the investment banks to be able to play a role in them. One specific corollary to this is that I also believe that they will increasingly be used by criminal organizations to launder money which, in and of itself, is a serious problem for law enforcement. Of course, when you have an organization that advised an entire country (Greece) on how to effectively hide its true fiscal condition, one has to bear in mind where the criminality actually exists here.
The high rates of return due to speculative value are already disappearing rapidly. Goldman missed the boat, and I believe their statements are a way to rationalize to their investors their inability to get in on the ground floor of these opportunities. They're probably right that many of these cryptocurrencies are going to "disappear" inasmuch as they are widely traded commodities, but as long as there are people willing to exchange real goods or currency for cryptocurrency, they by definition have a non-zero value. More importantly, I think we will see a significant slowdown in new cryptocurrencies.
Goldman is self-interested in eschewing a method of financial transactions where it does not have the ability to control or extract value out of. It got late to the party and is SOL as far as most cryptocurrencies go.
That said, most cryptocurrencies are substantially overvalued because the underlying value of any currency - crypto or otherwise - has to be backed up by some type of economy. The USD used to be on the gold standard, and only started inflating substantially after it was taken off even though a not-insubstantial portion of that value is in services and intellectual property rather than goods. The inflation of the value of the currency is a natural side-effect of a number of factors, but the ones that are most relevant in this discussion are disparate classes of valuable assets (physical and non-physical), the participants interacting with the currency, and speculation. Also remember that the value of cryptocurrencies is also being exchanges for other currencies, so there are also transaction costs and the actual value of those currencies relative to the cryptocurrency.
In any event, if we use those measures, the inherent value of any currency is the value of the actual goods and services tempered by these factors. That there has been speculation driving up the price is obvious. More importantly, we cannot state the value of all cryptocurrencies is zero strictly because of speculation, because cryptocurrency value is based on the fact that there are people are still willing to exchange goods, services and other valuables including paper currencies in exchange for cryptocurrency!
Goldman is wrong. Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are here to stay. What isn't wrong is the analysis that states there is overinflated value in the cryptocurrency. We can, of course, also say that of the inflated value of today's normal paper currencies backed by central banks, including speculation with various instruments and the perception of their underlying value. It's the same reason I can purchase currency futures and forwards for common currencies versus requiring special instruments like letters of credit for currencies of little value or with little trade with the currency of question (e.g. try to find a forward for Turkish Lira versus Burundian Francs). The only real difference is how that transaction happens.
And since Goldman is cut out, you better believe that they and JP Morgan and all of the investment banks are doing anything they can to keep themselves relevant in this brave new world of cryptocurrency. Spread FUD, use existing political connections to regulate or shut down cryptocurrency use, whatever. It's just that this time it really may not work.
The three reasons that anyone keeps getting SWAT teams sent to them are the following three factors that must be addressed:
1. Caller ID - it's broken. Unauthenticated caller ID and caller ID spoofing should be treated as a crime since scam artists continue to take over unprotected VoIP gateways. Nothing should be connected to the PSTN without a certificate issued by the PSTN provider, period. This way there's at least some traceability and requires someone to have come on premises or seriously violated the chain of trust far beyond the skiddie level that these little bastards engage in.
2. Police attitudes - militarization of police is rampant with surplus war equipment like MRAPS, Hollywood movie style takedowns and insufficiently-vetted police officers with mental stability issues. Some modicum of rational assessment of a situation without automatically deploying people is necessary. Laser listening devices on windows, drones, or maybe just walking up to the door. It can't be break in, throw flashbangs and yell like a lunatic getting the innocent occupants to play Simon says until they can't comply and someone innocent gets shot any more.
3. Punishment - this one is simple. You SWAT, you get twenty years for each instance consecutive. Someone dies because of a swatting, you're guilty of murder and you get life imprisonment. But wait, you say you have some kind of mental disability? Well no problem, you'll just be committed to a mental facility until your condition is eliminated without drugs. Oh, and are you a provider of a gateway to the PSTN or other services that connect to police and don't work to get this done? You lose your license to operate.
So many people, including myself, are tired of this nonsense. Legislators, law enforcement and telecom companies need to start working together to prevent these things. Otherwise I say they should all be held complicit along with the perpetrators of SWAT incidents in the crimes. It is sheer lunacy that this hasn't been addressed at multiple levels yet.
Wire harnesses are a critical component to vehicle safety. Wires that can degrade during the normal service life of a vehicle can be deadly. Think about a wire harness with insulation that's been eaten that controls the ABS, fuel injection or an airflow sensor, and you hit a bump in the road and it shorts. Now you lose power or braking. Are we willing to have someone's vehicle fail and the people seriously hurt or dead because of a fundamental design flaw?
I've worked on my own cars for years and seen some really stupid compromises and designs that make regular service difficult or results in failures just outside the warranty period. This, however, takes the cake, and we need to stand up to this by declaring the insulation issue a fundamental safety issue. I'm now thinking about mitigation strategies beyond my standard maintenance that neither I nor anyone else shouldn't have to think about, like underhood blinking lights, sprays, capsaicin tapes, etc..
I would encourage anyone with one of these vehicles to file a NHTSA complaint stating that soy wire harnesses should be banned and recalls instituted to remedy the problem by either (a) replacing the harnesses with standard synthetic non-edible polymers as appropriate to the specific application, or (b) providing coatings that provably prevent rodents from consuming the insulation over the lifespan of the vehicle. We should also inform our congresscritters about this issue.
NHTSA complaint form: https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/... Congresscritters: https://www.house.gov/represen... and https://www.senate.gov/senator...