A point in screen space is a line in world space after inverse camera projection, so this way you get the line-to-closest-geometry test in O(1), after the overhead of needing to render the lookup texture first.
unsigned add(unsigned x, unsigned y) {
unsigned a, b;
do {
a = x & y; /* every position where addition will generate a carry */
b = x ^ y; /* the addition, with no carries */
x = a << 1; /* the carries */
y = b;
/* if there were any carries, repeat the loop */
} while (a);
return b;
}
It's easy to show that this algorithm is correct in the sense that, when b is returned, it must be equal to x+y. x+y summing to a constant is a loop invariant, and at termination x is 0 and y is b.
It's a little more difficult to see that the loop will necessarily terminate.
New a values come from a bitwise & of x and y. New x values come from a left shift of a. This means that, if x ends in some number of zeroes, the next value of a will also end in at least that many zeroes, and the next value of x will end in an additional zero (because of the left shift). Eventually a will end in as many zeroes as there are bits in a, and the loop will terminate.
Alive2 does not handle loops; don't know what exactly it does by default, but changing the `shl i32 %and, 1` to `shl i32 %and, 2` has it still report the transformation as valid. You can add `--src-unroll=2` for it to check up to two loop iterations, which does catch such an error (and does still report the original as valid), but of course that's quite limited. (maybe the default is like `--src-unroll=1`?)
If flying were invented today, I bet it wouldn't be allowed due to the radiation. It's more than many medical procedures which guidelines say to only do when the medical benefits outweigh the radiation risk.
Dithering isn't only applied to 2D graphics, it can be applied in any type of spatial or temporal data to reduce the noise floor, or tune aliasing distortion noise to other parts of the frequency spectrum. Also common in audio.
Seems to me the real problem here is not the timezone (there's legitimate business needs to run something daily at a specific localtime...) but having multiple instances of a cron job that overlap, in which case it should wait until the previous is done or not start at all. At least prefix a job with "flock -n" if it doesn't/can't handle that.
Not surprising - even having 2 DDR5 DIMMs on the same channel compromises signal integrity enough to need to drop the frequency by ~30-40%, so perhaps the best mitigation at the moment is to ensure the host is using the fastest DDR5 available.
So - Is the host DRAM/DIMM technology and frequency included in the remote attestation report for the VM?
The mental image I'm getting from your description is a high speed o-scope probe copy-pasted 80 times, which would obviously be insane. But keysight docs show what looks like an entirely normal PCB that literally interposes the BGA with trace wires on every pin, which looks far too simple for a multi GHz signal.
What do they actually look like and are there teardowns that show the analog magic?
I wonder if these are full sampling scopes. In the past we had Equivalent Time Sampling scope(wideband front end, fast sampling slow rate ADC, a variable delay trigger) and many buses have repeatable test patterns that let you trigger that way. They were always a fairly niche device.
The attestation report is signed by a key in the PSP hardware, not accessible by any OS or software, which can then be validated with the vendor's certificate/public-key. If that can be faked, are you saying that those private keys are compromised?
I'm willing to bet if you ran terrorism-as-a-service.com on a protected VM, it wouldn't be secure for long, and if it really came down to it, the keys would be coughed up.
I am a blue collar layperson (who only understands IPv4's limitation as a lack of total available IP addresses) that disables IPv6 (at the router level) for this exact reason — I feel like I am losing the little bit of control that being "behind NAT" allows on a private IP range/network (e.g. firewall; port mapping).
Obviously I still use Windows 7 Pro 64-bit as my only Microsoft computer — also have an Ubuntu dual Xeon (for LLM/crypto) and several Apple Silicon products (for general browsing).
You're misunderstanding the purpose of NAT, which is not a security boundary. Apple, for instance, has (or had) nearly all of their workstations on a public IP space.
You can still equally as effectively firewall and port map devices on public IPs as you can behind NAT -- and actually just a bit easier, since you're taking NAT out of the picture.
Do you have a gateway that doesn't do ipv6 firewalling (e.g. allow outgoing, only allow established incoming)? I was under the impression that even no-names manage to get that correct. Why would you need port mapping if not for NAT? Even with NAT, for home use I was always mapping port n to n.
reply