Theorising I've seen on this - though, I don't recall where - suggested targeting resonances with HAARP in a similar way to how a human singer can shatter a wineglass, by projecting the crystals frequency, causing it to oscillate itself to pieces.
That is high-watt transmission power may not be required. And further, it was suggested it's not done in isolation by HAARP but cooperatively with various transmitters also transmitting the same frequency at the same target - using standing waves.
It makes sense conceptually as an idea but I'm not sure there if there's any evidence of it?
The HAARP conspiracy theories are fun and date back to the old days of conspiracy theories when people wore tin foil hats and worried about government mind rays. Not at all based in reality or sensible but at least those conspiracies were harmless and non-political.
Anyway... no there's no evidence. But i do miss these classic conspiracy theories! Anyone remember the X-Files episode featuring HAARP?
So, the thing is tin foil hats do protect against the government mind rays; but aluminum foil hats don't. And too many people are wearing aluminum foil hats, and then the government mind rays work, and then they spout different conspiracy theories, planted by the government mind rays. And those conspiracy theories get traction, because they're spouted by people in metal hats.
With distributed ray detectors and suitable modeling of inner earth processes, assuming that the premise is correct - seems it may have potential to work?
Ie, maybe able to generate the level of specificity required.
EDIT: Also there aren't that many places on earth at high risk of earthquake that also have poor construction, etc. Meaning any advance warning, that a significant quake may hit somewhere, can trigger "battening down the hatches".
You'd have to get a theory of why the rays correlate to earthquakes to have a usable model.
Realistically, if you live in a place with poor construction and relatively large earthquake risk, the sensible thing is to always have your emergency kit ready to go. Chances are, you have other infrastructure issues anyway, so keeping a week or so of emergency rations and water available might come in handy more often than somewhere that has tigher building codes (and enforcement). It would likely be hard for everyone to prep within the same two week window anyway. But, if it was quite specific and accurate, relief organizations could begin staging and start traveling to be closer and quicker to respond.
Doesn't seem like it's anywhere close to that from descriptions in this thread.
I'd buy one of the ones with a screen, keyboard and floppies, at a much higher price; if all of it worked and could be used say, with a toothpick and pair of tweezers. My guess is we're just about there with embedded stuff that it would be doable.
This is very cool, but I can't understand how 60khz is enough resolution to usefully discern what would be happening inside a CPU, etc, that's running way faster than that? (Disclaimer: I can't read the article as it says "browser not supported".)
The idea is that in typical assymetric cryptosystem you do some variant of bitwise exponentation of “large values” (ie. slow) and both the power envelope and timing is directly related to individual bit values of the private key. This trivially works for RSA and also anything involving integer-like groups and then even for “classic” ECC, things like 25519 are intentionally designed to mitigate this kind of side channel.
Have to point out that this includes second system optimizations. Just porting C over to Zig won't give you that 3x reduction. For others, I also highly recommend the video linked in that blog post.
Having Swiss Tables (a more or less state of the art hash table for modern computers) is attractive but I think it'd be appropriate to be scared of unmaintained C labelled as a "proof of concept".
The CTL "unordered set" is roughly the same bad design as its namesake in C++, presumably on purpose. We really shouldn't be teaching new users this bad structure, nor the "security policy" mitigations it provides. And by the way it's not a "distributed" denial of service when somebody plugs 128 colliding values into your API, just a normal trivial DOS.
The paper describes the implementation including a detailed breakdown of the optimisation algorithm itself.
It's also plausible an iPhone 14 Pro could do it given its memory b/w, ops/s and that it can fit the SD model in RAM.
So you just assume these smart people are all lying ? And not just like hiding details but straight up saying it's on-device but faking it ? If so, I don't understand why that is your reaction.
