It appeared to be a question about Flock cameras. It really was a double entendre where Flock could be taken to mean a flock of birds. Normally, explaining a joke removes all the humor.
> Clearly then if one wishes to maintain in a great giant the same proportion of limb as that found in an ordinary man he must either find a harder and stronger material for making the bones, or he must admit a diminution of strength in comparison with men of medium stature; for if his height be increased inordinately he will fall and be crushed under his own weight.
> While Galileo’s argument explains the nonexistence of human giants ...
The blog completely misreads what Galileo wrote. Galileo did not write that human giants did not exist, as the blog asserts. Galileo wrote how they could have existed, which could not have happened simply by scaled body structures.
It was an architectural problem, not an encryption problem. Even with AES instead of 3DES, the same issue would exist, which is spoofing the commands of any of the legitimate MSI services.
The parent comment is correct. They are talking about GPT-4, which was really expensive by today's standard. After GPT4o came out, GPT-4 was completely forgotten.
It's not that other people are famous. They have a track record in this exact field, where he produced results and made money for investors. His results help to shape how software development gets performed.
A signed executable isn't for trusting the app. It's for knowing the provenance of the app. Sure, there are some application checks that happen before listing a store app, but those checks are minimal.
A bunch of things break when you do that, though I do run my osx machine that way. The point is that it shouldn't be the default, it's the end of personal computing.
If you're considering whether to use a FIPS 140-3 module for your cryptography, consider that FIPS 140-3 is really only for specific compliance verticals. If you don't know whether you need it, you probably don't need it.
So, along those lines, if you wonder whether a package's cryptography should be FIPS 140-3 compliant, then the real question is whether you are a vertical that needs to be compliant. Again, if you aren't sure, the answer is likely NO.
>Again, if you aren't sure, the answer is likely NO.
Likely no, I agree. But I think there are probably a lot of companies selling enterprise software that later attempt to solicit a FedRAMP authorization that would benefit from planning ahead and building a compliant version from the jump. Worth considering and having a conversation internally.
reply