I'm puzzled as there seems to be a clear pattern on how a human user would look like vs a bot.
High bot likely hood if: If a session jumps to a different ip. If the session jumps IP after just a few requests. If a new blank session starts with a deep link. Maybe those are cases where some POW is better justified?
Assumption: the rendered HTML might be viewed by a legitimate developer, even via a deep link from outside. But rarely from a wget script without a session cookie .
The other nice idea from the comments - is this rendering effort something that can be pushed to the user? Instead of pointless POW work, can you offload the expensive rendering to the user side?
But certainly, this is just an armchair comment and the kernel guys certainly have tried everything in this arms race...
This hints at a hiking trip planner maybe?
Depending on time of day and year evaluate a path to be in the direct sun/shade?
In summer, I might want to avoid the direct sun. Suggest the hiking path with least direct sunshine. And if it is autumn already, then please suggest a hiking path to be in the sun all day.
Might be a cool feature to compare hiking paths by percentage of direct sunshine.
But maybe, selecting a path through a forest vs. across open fields might already do.
Great result - it would be nice to learn how this could be used..
How would you connect a Tamron lens to a Linux machine? Is this with the external USB port or Bluetooth dongle? Or through the bayonet connector? A linx camera controlling it's lens?
Just for settings and firmware update? Or some imaging workflow? Can you give a practical example of Linux also controlling the camera?
New Tamron lenses have built-in usb-c port close to the lens mount. The utility just replicates what official Windows/Mac software does - not much, configuration of focus-by-wire, corrections, button functions.
Modern lenses are complex electronics now. They need to communicate with the camera about correction params, metadata, control algorithm for focusing and stabilization. Having a usbc port is a natural next step.
Lenses have energy budgets, responsiveness concerns and actuator/sensor pairings through embedded processing. Therefore they need firmware. Firmware goes out of date and has bugs and improvements. Having the ability to configure a lens beyond simply selecting firmware is an obvious second use of the required interface.
Firmware doesn't inherently have more bugs than hardware, in general that's a consequence of the ability to update it more than the other way around. Here the need for an update-able firmware comes more from implementation a reverse engineered interface which might need fixes for compatibility with future cameras or updated camera firmware that only care about official vendor approved lenses (which consequently don't have a need for an update interface). However that still doesn't explain who would want things like auto-focus fine tuning or assignable buttons in the lens rather than the camera body where it already exists. Just because the USB interface is there doesn't mean that this use of it is useful.
> However that still doesn't explain who would want things like auto-focus fine tuning or assignable buttons in the lens rather than the camera body where it already exists.
1) not all camera bodies include those fine tuning options in the camera firmware;
2) lenses that include additional buttons beyond that which the camera maker programmed the body to understand can't be tweaked by a body that was never programmed to know the button exists;
3) in the specific case of some Tamron zooms, the Tamron focus fine tuning is at up to five different distance figures, while most camera body focus fine tuning is a single global setting for that one lens;
4) for camera bodies that do include focus tuning in their firmware, they also usually have a limited number of slots for a limited number of lenses. For professionals they very well may own more lenses than the camera has slots, so being able to "tune the lens" via "the lens itself" means each can be fine tuned, even if the camera body cannot store that many different adjustments;
5) an adjustment the camera maker never thought to include (i.e., one example quoted in the repo where the focus ring direction can be reversed) can not be tweaked by the camera body. This is useful to photographers who mix lenses from different makers on the same body as Canon builds their focus rings to rotate one way when focusing towards infinity while Nikon builds their focus rings to rotate in the opposite direction towards infinity.
Modern DSLR camera lenses are full blown embedded computers controlling mechanical actuators (focus motor, aperture blades, etc.) and communicating lens information to the camera's CPU (aberration corrections, vignetting corrections, etc.). The days of lenses just being collections of mechanical cams for moving glass elements back and forth disappeared a great many years ago.
A hub motor for each leg adds some weight, but you get a rolling mode on flat terrain with great range.
At the same time you keep obstacle climbing mode with stationary wheels, and can use the leg actuators as shock absorbers and obstacle avoidance on a bumpy path. Best of both worlds, with a new software challenge.
The distinction is rather that the device was made next door, from raw materials, with them possibly watching. Certainly acknowledging the craftsmanship, but still while understanding your tools.
Today, labs are filled with expensive machines and you are not able to peek inside.
You need something? Only from a catalog, made in a mystical factory, without you knowing what's inside.
This abstraction speeds up your process (the tool you bought is fully qualified for what you plan to do) but also detaches you from the low level inner workings. Kids are fascinated if you take an everyday object apart with them (but maybe only if it was already broken)
Taking apart modern day “advanced” objects is way less fulfilling than those from the past. Miniaturization/integration and the increased complexity puts things beyond what even an adult can easily and visually grasp, let alone a kid. It’s mostly “black box” chips now.
Those advanced lab tools were built by many very skilled people. We’re past the time where a single person could hold it all in their head. One man could build a modern lathe back when they were a new thing, one man can’t build a modern lithography machine today.
I wanted to say that lathes have been around for over 2000 years and for most of that time a single well trained man could build one. In fact I’d wager that most lathes and indeed maybe even every part of that lathe up until the industrial revolution were built by a person working alone.
The advanced machines of today are no longer within reach for almost any single well trained man. Now it takes an army of people with non-overlapping skills and knowledge.
200 years ago a basic component was wire or a metal sheet, you’d get them “pre made”. Today the basic component is a chip with millions of transistors and thousands of lines of firmware code that do 99% of the job.
At least you can understand every part of a pencil even without having one in front of you, what it does, and a bit of experimentation would get you an absolutely terrible but technically functioning pencil. Make the tiny leap to a pen and you already lost everyone.
Could build a lathe from parts they could purchase, but not from scratch. The simple ballpoint pen is an absolute marvel of precision engineering that we take utterly for granted. That ball in the tip? Not something you could knock out in a weekend by hand. Even wire itself as a basic component is freaking impossible to feasibly do from scratch compared to going down to the hardware store and spending $5 for a spool. That I can also get a microcontroller devkit that's impossible for me to recreate from a local store is mind-blowing, if we stop to think about it.
2000 years ago the person who was capable enough to think of and build a lathe didn’t go to order the pieces. They modeled the raw materials (wood, metal, stone) into what they needed. But let me give you a less debatable example. Watch makers or even the people who built the Antikythera mechanism didn’t go to the cog and sprocket store to get the parts. They manufactured the components from the raw material or as close to it as possible. They probably built their own tools to for the longest time.
And when I said pen I meant fountain pen. It’s counterintuitive but probably more people today can draw a conceptual diagram of a ballpoint than a fountain pen. Ballpoints are a very simple design limited only by the very tight tolerances need to make them work.
But that was my whole point, complexity got so high that most things around us cannot be built without specialized tools, specialized building blocks, and specialized knowledge that takes years to gather. And this needs to be repeated for almost every object. Different tools, building blocks, and knowledge.
A highschooler today knows more chemistry than Mendeleev but that doesn’t help because the complexity in each field or product increases faster than one person’s ability to keep up with learning.
The linked article is a high level announcement that new sensors were installed, but no experiments yet.
I would have loved if they shared some technical details, e. g. which sensors, how does it record, frequency range and sample rate, time synchronization, offline capabilities. Maybe even a photo of the sensor? (I couldn't find any)
I'm surprised there are no security researchers that would pick up on this.
Take the same prompt and all incoming mails and run again through various existing models, even the simpler local ones. He now has a serious cross section of prompt injection ideas. This is a publication I would like to read!
For privacy reasons I understand the corpus might not get published. But for a research collaboration and safeguards (don't send automatic answers from each model you try)... why not?
I guess the decoder is more than the 208 bytes that this page uses..
But maybe you can misuse this and store a session ID / cookie in a favicon (give everyone a unique one) and survive some cookie cleanup and evade privacy restrictions?
Maybe you can still make it that the favicon looks like an image a little to not raise suspicion?
Favicons seem to be cached across private browsing sessions. Oh no
This post spends a lot of attention on how to fasten, glue and adapt a specific existing keyboard and monitor from a 1U rack mounted console. If I would need a similar serial console, it will end up differently - just because my parts are different.
> Tindie has not paid me for the last month. They take your money for your order and then require me to ship product to you, but they do not pay me. Temporarily, please place your order through the tattlersolutions.com website. See below
High bot likely hood if: If a session jumps to a different ip. If the session jumps IP after just a few requests. If a new blank session starts with a deep link. Maybe those are cases where some POW is better justified?
Assumption: the rendered HTML might be viewed by a legitimate developer, even via a deep link from outside. But rarely from a wget script without a session cookie .
The other nice idea from the comments - is this rendering effort something that can be pushed to the user? Instead of pointless POW work, can you offload the expensive rendering to the user side?
But certainly, this is just an armchair comment and the kernel guys certainly have tried everything in this arms race...