I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't any prediction result above statistical random (in the image mind reading study) be significant? If the study was performed correctly I don't really need to know much about fMRI to tell whether it's an interesting result or not.

The study misleading claimed to produce images from brainwaves. In reality, they effectively built a combination of classifier from brainwaves to one of a few predetermined classifications of images shown (still cool, but less impressive) and a neural net to reproduce images it was trained on given a classification (boring).

I don't understand. Wouldn't it only be possible to find out by comparing two identical clocks that were at different altitudes for some larger number of ticks, allowing you to then compare the elapsed ticks? How would you conduct such an experiment? My mental model is that I have a black box that outputs an electrical signal every tick, and then maybe we could just figure out which clock ticked first with a simple circuit. But that seems like we would need to sync them, and that it's fundamentally wrong due to the fact that the information of the tick is also subject to the speed of light. I don't know much beyond high school physics, fwiw.

My comment here might give some intuition for it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44576004 . You do need to measure for some time, because the measurement of the clocks with respect to each other is noisy, but you don't need to wait for there to be a whole 'tick' of extra time between them.

So the user remains at risk in the time between the leak and the time the company discovers it and resets all passwords, which could be months. It might not really be relevant for most sites and for most users, and you might argue that if the hash database is compromised you have other things to worry about, but it's a something to consider.

I'm not sure i know which side of the debate you're on but the analogy that comes to mind is if you put your watch on a shelf in Walmart, they're supposed to protect it for you? It's absolutely your responsibility to lock your doors at night even if the bank currently owns your home.

People are walking around trying car doors at night and people are throwing dictionaries and tables at log in forms. Would you blame the bank if someone guessed your password of 1234? How are they supposed to tell it isn't you?

But it'll be wrong. 355/113 is only useful up to n digits, not infinitely, and GP is saying that n is as big as the number of digits in "355/113".

Not OP, but I generated over 150 images using DALL-E 2. Results in the quality of the images in the gallery are very common. Usually, for prompts as simple as this most of the output images (there are 4) look as good or better.

172.16.0.0/12 is a private subnet. This means that it's addresses are relevant only within a local network, and never over the internet. If you try to send a packet to an address within that subnet, layer 3 devices (i.e. routers) on the internet will drop it.

If it was that way for a few months and then fixed... still pretty shoddy but sure. However, it has been that way for YEARS, and is one of the most common complaints among players. I wonder how much of the remaining loading time could actually be shaved off if someone with the source code took a crack at it.

It GTFO with its remaining fuel and then crash lands. Going back to orbit would require enormous amounts of fuel.

It's funny that they never say. (My mother-in-law asked if it would go back to orbit, too.) Saying "it flies far enough away to be sure it won't hit the lander when it crashes" would sound funny. They never seem to drive over to check it out, either, AFAIK.

It started with ~800 lbs of hydrazine fuel on board that had to slow tons moving at 200 mph to a dead stop, and then hover for 10+ seconds while the lander spun down; and then boost away and crash. ("Crash-land" sounds like entirely more control than what really happened.)

Starlink roughly orbits at 1200km. The most common orbit for internet sats is geostationary orbit, which means that the satellite is stationary with regards to an observer on Earth. It works because a satellite on a circular orbit at that height moves at the same speed as the rotation of Earth.

This way you can have a simple, pointed antenna and not an obscenely expensive phased array like Starlink. That being said, GEO is only 36000km,so I'm not sure where the "60 times" figure comes from...

Starlink currently orbits at 550 km. 550*60=33000 so that puts it slightly more than 60 times closer than GEO. There are other shells planned at different heights, but the current satellites, and ones launched in the near future, are all orbiting at 550km.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink -- in the table of launches there's a column for orbit height.

It still sounds so wild for some reason! 60X closer!

You’re saying these and other satellites are planned for this ‘shell’ and maybe others at different distances? Could this be partly due to congestion and the problem of ‘space junk’?

Also, won’t satellites in an orbit this close to earth eventually be ‘sucked’ in to the atmosphere and burn up?

Right - thanks for the correction.

They are orbiting at 550 km, 1200km was the original constellation plan that was later changed.

This board has four 2.5G ports, not four 10G ports, so the 16G bandwidth for four PCie 2.0 lanes is more than enough.

Right... the parent is saying that 4x10G is pointless compared to 4x2.5G, because PCIe 4 lanes will top out at forwarding around 7gbps of traffic.

You can't do line rate on all ports either (limited by PCIe alone, let alone CPU for smaller packets), but you can certainly fill an individual port, which I suspect is the goal.

> because PCIe 4 lanes will top out at forwarding around 7gbps of traffic [...] limited by PCIe alone

Are you sure about that? With 5GT/s (or 500MB/s) per lane, and with 4 lanes, that should be plenty, no? Intel adapters like the x520-DA2 are specced at 2x 10G, and use PCIe 2.0 x8.

FWIW, I was also able to iperf3 around 3.7Gbps on a X520-DA2 connected to an RPi4's single-lane PCIe 2.0.

The so-called 5 Gb/s PCIe 2.0 lanes are in fact 4 Gb/s lanes.

Ethernet speeds are given in data bits per second, while USB 3.0, PCIe 1.0 and PCIe 2.0 add in their speed values the extra bits used for encoding.

On the other hand, 10 Gb/s USB and 8 Gb/s PCIe 3.0 have really those speeds. Complicated :-(

One PCIe 2.0 lane is more than enough for 2.5 Gb/s Ethernet, but not enough for 5 Gb/s Ethernet or 10 Gb/s Ethernet.

> FWIW, I was also able to iperf3 around 3.7Gbps on a X520-DA2 connected to an RPi4's single-lane PCIe 2.0.

Yah, I said forwarding-- so each packet goes over the PCIe link twice.

So, to use your test-- 3.7 x 4 / 2 = 7.4gbps. I said around 7. 7.4gbps would be a bit more than I'd expect, but I'd not be shocked.

But PCIe is full duplex! With PCIe 2.0 x4 there's 4 lanes in each direction [1], so when 'forwarding' over a single 10G link you can expect to send and receive simultaneously at the speed I mentioned earlier.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express#Pinout

Yah, I guess dividing by 2 isn't fair. But transmitting does impact receiving and vice-versa: when you're reading DMA descriptors, you need to wait/hold for posted completions, etc. It's not fully uncontended between send and receive, but more uncontended than a naive division by 2 would imply.