Yes, pentesting tools, even automated ones, are often legal. But they commonly do run up against legal restrictions and risks. They're marketed very differently from ChatGPT.

I hope the courts will stamp out these Intellectual Property thieves quickly or they will become a real threat to computing.

It leads with "AI Will Never Be Ethical or Safe".

The first sentence is "AI will never be *entirely* ethical or safe."

It concludes with "AI is a tool, and it can be used in ethical and unethical, safe and unsafe ways" and compares them to "hardware store clerks".

Hardware stores are *specifically* places where society has had a centuries-long conversation about risk and the products on sale represent a very intentional set of choices. In some parts of the US hardware stores used to sell dynamite, they don't anymore. That's the 'social contract' functioning in daily life.

"AI is like a tool one might buy from the hardware store" is, in most people's minds, the opposite of the opening premise.

As said before, the idea of coordinated frequency hopping was already known at the time.

From the article: "A letter on 3 October 1941 from the Lyon and Lyon attorney to Lamarr and Antheil says '...we rather doubted at the time that method claim 7 would be considered patentable, since the invention appears to reside more in a new apparatus than in a new method.' Thus, the attorney representing the applicants agreed with the patent examiner that the evidence was against Lamarr-Antheil’s definitive method claim to FHSS, which was claim 7."

This analysis makes it pretty clear that EFF's 1997 assertion that she and Antheil "developed and [...] patented the concept of 'frequency-hopping' that is now the basis for the spread spectrum radio systems" is flatly untrue.

This isn't to say that she wasn't an inventor or innovator, or didn't put together existing known techniques in a new way to address a relevant and interesting problem.

All those times I'd listened to it on the radio... I knew it was missing something.

After the object tumbles, an effect transition has been added. You can tell because it overlays the "Pause (Ctrl+P)" control and how blooms outside the cropped video frame. This strongly suggests that it's not actually a continuous time shot.

Perhaps:

- This video is of an ordinary cruise missile or drone.

- Its surface is very hot, making it appear as a blob.

- The so-called hellfire doesn't detonate for whatever reason

- The object tumbles and crashes, but the video is deceptively spliced.

I don't trust this Representative to not lie knowingly or evaluate such claims skeptically. Statements like "I'm not going to explain it to you, you'll see exactly what it does" and "This is when it's zoomed out, you can still see it traveling" seem to be careful wording meant to lead people to a conclusion without actually claiming it.

You are correct that there is energy bound in the information stored in the chip. But last I checked, our most efficient chips (e.g., using reversible computing to avoid wasting that energy) are still orders of magnitude less efficient than those theoretical limits.

Probably there's less paste remaining on the south end of the CPU because that's where the mounting force is greatest.

If anything, there's too much paste remaining on the center/north end of the CPU. Paste exists simply to bridge the roughness of the two metal surfaces, too much paste is a bad sign.

My guess is that the MB was oriented vertically and that big heavy heat sink with the large lever arm pulled it away from the center and north side of the CPU.

IMO, the CPU is still responsible for managing its power usage to live a long life. The only effect of an imperfect thermal solution ought to be proportionally reduced performance.

I recall that on DOS, Borland Turbo C would detect writes to address 0 and print a message during normal program exit.

> My gut tells me that these attacks must be happening in more subtle ways from time to time.

Dual_EC_DRBG plus TLS Extended Random come to mind.

Waiting for the user to click "Check for updates..." is effectively pushing this responsibility onto the users, the vast majority of whom lack the information and expertise needed to make an informed choice about the risk.

So my main user account does not have sudo permissions at all, I have a separate account for that.

I sometimes set up a script that runs several variations on 'cargo tree', as well as collects various stats on output binary sizes, lines of code, licenses, etc.

The output is written to a .txt file that gets checked-in. This allows me to easily observe the 'weight' of adding any new feature or dependency, and to keep an eye on the creep over time as the project evolves.