The paper makes the point that you need to consider L3 in client isolation too - they call this the gateway bouncing attack. If you can hairpin traffic for clients at L3, it doesn't matter what preventions you have at L2

Strongly disagree. The post is really poorly structured and circles the drain a few times getting to the thesis.

The issues of style are annoying, but I find it much worse to wade through these 3000 word posts which are far longer than they need to be just because they're so damn cheap to compose.

It's far longer than it needs to be because the writing process was too cheap.

> many retailers had no measurements for their own clothes except the reference size.

When you say reference size, do you mean like a single size which is used in the industry for samples? I had a friend living in Montreal who was fashionable, she said it was like heaven being a size 8 in Montreal because she had access to a bunch of cheap, interesting, one-off samples. Wondering if this is the same concept.

Never been in the industry, but used to follow a blog of someone who did pattern design for a north-american casual-wear company, super interesting stuff! There's lots of nuance in size grading.

I've had a ton of fun using these lightweight desks as makeshift porta-ledges while climbing.

Biggest downside is their lack of moisture resistance.

Would vacuum bagging help?

Deliverability to Microsoft famously took a dive a bit over a year ago due to random arbitrary failures within their infrastructure causing DMARC/DKIM problems which they clearly were having problems diagnosing.

Even with a six-figure email spend and weeks of troubleshooting the best response we could get from our mail provider was that they were having problems getting traction with Microsoft on the issue.

Worth mentioning is that there are several email umbrellas under Microsoft... including the newer office/365, the slightly older outlook.com hosting, the old corp hosting and hotmail and sub-properties... each with different rules and services to determine spam in inconsistent ways between them.

One of my main emails is still on a "free" outlook.com hosted with a personal domain that I never shifted to paid 365. I've also got an MTA server (mailu) of my own that I've been testing with... my own email under outlook.com is literally the only one of the MS systems I can't seem to deliver to, the rest work fine. Same for google.com for that matter... kinda wild.

This issue didn't seem to discriminate. I was seeing deliverability failures to Office 365 clients as well as consumer-facing brands like hotmail and msn

Okay... I was just adding my own experience as I was able to deliver to some without issue and not the one. It's entirely possible this has changed in the past couple years since I was actively testing.

With a broad statement like this, I would usually just suggest this is inflammatory and surely overstated.

However, I've also worked at a financial institution which used core systems by Harland Financial Systems. Their "encryption" for data in transit from teller workstations to the core system was just a two byte XOR, and they sent the key at the beginning of the connection!

Was so unbelievable to be able to crack this in under a half-hour after noticing patterns in a PCAP. Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

That fraud was good enough for our regulators and theirs, so I have no doubt the industry is filled with rotten incompetence through and through.

The biggest disappointment in my 30 years of adulting has been how much absolute, shameless incompetence is out there in the workforce. When I was a kid, I naively thought that adults were smart and knew what they are doing. Then I got into industry and saw so many people just outright bluffing for 8 hours a day before going home, day in and day out.

It's amazing that society even functions at all.

I think that's actually an interesting feature of society as a macro system. It is very fault tolerant, which is frustrating for any power user but without which the system as a whole would not function at all.

Or without which the system would function much better because all poorly functioning systems would fail, forcing designers to focus on fixing the faults

I think of it as a plane that cannot land. Allow it to fail in flight and you won't have a plane to fix or designers to fix it.

At least when you realize it, you are cured from any imposter syndrome you might have.

Until you actively start looking for genuine personals from the flood of incompetents

The plagiarism by the models is only part of it. Perhaps it's in such small pieces that it becomes difficult to care. I'm not convinced.

The larger, and I'd argue more problematic, plagiarism is when people take this composite output of LLMs and pass it off as their own.

Indeed. I'm confused by this line from the article

> a study with 197 participants, the team could infer the identity of persons with almost 100% accuracy – independently of the perspective or their gait.

The paper seems to make it clear that the technique still depends on gait analysis, but claims it's more robust against gait variations.

The paper also makes clear they had no success correlating across different perspectives- welcome to science reporting.

Given the number of gait analysis publications over several decades using varying techniques, can you recommend a good review article disproving all of them?

Given the number of publications about curing <pick your uncured disease> over several decades using varying techniques, can you recommend a good review article disproving all of them?

Answer: no need, if it had been cured, it would be cured. And it is not.

My point being that many publications saying "towards X" may mean that we are making some progress towards X, but they don't mean at all that X is possible.

I don’t think anyone has ever tried to publish something disproving all of the gait analysis claims. That would be an odd sort of thing. But I have not seen anything come to something that we could call productized and reliable. It’s relatively easy to publish theoretical papers. Much harder to show it working reliably in the wild.