>their data centers are immune to the anger of the commoners who are being surveilled

If the commoners are attacking infrastructure, there's still always going to be ground stations that can be attacked.

Look up fission vs fusion.

Weren't they targeting US bases in those countries?

Initially yes, but then Iran began targeting everything of value nearby. Bridges in Bahrain, Dubai airport (struck 4-5 times), apartment buildings in Dubai, desalination plants in Kuwait, schools in Azerbaijan, LNG facilities in Qatar, pumping stations in Saudi Arabia, power plants in UAE, oil storage in Oman, etc.

Azerbaijan has no US military bases, it has no Israeli military bases, it has no ties to the current conflict, yet Iran still fired drones at a school in Azerbaijan, without justification.

Near a school and "allegedly"

  Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense stated that four Iranian drones attacked Nakhchivan, one of which was neutralized by the Azerbaijani army while others targeted civilian infrastructure. One drone fell on the terminal building of Nakhchivan International Airport, while another landed near a school building in the village of Shakarabad, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, resulting in damage to the airport and injuries to four civilians.

..

  Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and Iranian diplomat Kazem Gharibabadi denied that Iran had attacked Azerbaijan. Araghchi suggested that it was an Israeli false flag operation to draw Azerbaijan into the conflict with Iran.

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_alleged_Iranian_strikes_o...

In the volume of drones fired this appears as little more than four wayward drones targeted as a result of an accident or miscommunication - the best guesses being bad intel about an anti Iran meeting or a deliberate false flag.

You addressed one item from a list of ten examples. Why ignore the rest of the list?

Dubai airport was struck four or five times. Qatar's LNG facilities. Kuwait's desalination plants. Bahrain's bridges. Saudi pumping stations. UAE power plants. Oman oil storage. You haven't mentioned any of these.

Back to Azerbaijan - your own explanation convicts Iran. Claiming the strikes were due to "bad intel about an anti Iran meeting" -- do you even realize what you are saying? That means that Iran chose to fire drones at a target on Azerbaijani soil. That's the definition of an attack. You are proving my point.

And Iran's FM denying it and blaming Israel is precisely what Iran does every single time. They've run that same story dozens of times on attributed strikes. Using that as your defense shows how gullible you are.

Iran denied they shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, killing 176 civilians; do you believe them? Are you that gullible?

Iran denied launching missiles toward Diego Garcia, calling it an Israeli false flag attack; do you believe them?

Iran's denied its drones strikes on Omani ports, then a day later Iran's FM admitted it and apologized, then the next day Iran fired another volley of drones at Oman. Iran has given up pretending, and they now openly place mines in Omani waters.

Furthermore, your "false flag theory" is flawed. For your "false flag theory" to work, Israel not only launched the drones undetected, but Azerbaijan's own government is either complicit in the lie or they were duped. That's an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. Yet you provide zero evidence that Azerbaijan is lying, and zero evidence of Israeli involvement.

Azerbaijan's own Ministry of Defense confirmed the strikes by four Iranian drones. The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry confirmed a drone hit near a school. Iran denies it because that is their MO, not because it didn't happen.

There were two sentences. I looked into the second sentence.

It's the more interesting case precisely because it was an outlier with no US bases, US assests, et al.

> your own explanation convicts Iran.

Not my explanation, see the linked discussion.

> ... do you believe them? Are you that gullible?

Tell me more about when you stopped beating your wife.

> then the next day Iran fired another volley of drones at Oman.

I believe I looked into Azerbaijan which may have been hit by an independent IRG cell, IIRC Oman is an entire other country.

> Furthermore, your "false flag theory" is flawed.

Not my theory - see the linked discussion.

Please look up the difference between losing and loosing.

Call me pedantic but it just makes it unpleasant to read.

You should assume that a 13 year HN veteran likely knows the difference, is human, and had a mild bout of misfiring fingers.

Small beer in the greater scheme ... and unable to be edited / corrected by the user in question some 12 hours after the comment.

If you're realy that upsit, cun I seggust you emraile HN @ Ycombingnater and ask for a m0d to intravein?

OP used the wrong "lose" in two separate comments in the same discussion. That's why no, I don't think the 13 years was enough time. But there's no shame in that, nobody knows everything.

I'm not aware of how long anyone has been on HN, bar a very small number of users. Who can be bothered to check histories for everyone you comment to?

Fair point about not being able to edit.

>If you're realy that upsit

Thank you for using the correct "you're". :)

So obvious! Why didn't they think of that?

The notion that assembly lines can’t accommodate fast-paced change is very early 20th century. Modern assembly lines are very flexible.

Interestingly, if you look at the posted link, in the top-right there's a "talk to Blue41" link that allows you to do exactly that.

I wonder if they have a "risk control platform" for their calendar?

It's LLMs all the way down!!

Asteroid mining? This is the most ridiculous thing ever. How this half baked snake oil salesman gets anyone to invest in his companies amazes me.

It's trivially easy to create a malicious file with the same CRC as another file.

So "verifying" using CRC is very stupid if you're trying to prevent malicious execution. You need to use cryptographic signatures.

The entire point of my post was that it's trivial, exactly as difficult as computing the CRC in the first place. Not sure why that was controversial.

Nevertheless, they're still useful protection against noise, and you usually want to detect it right as you're pulling protocol messages off the wire. Placing checksums in the last field of each message (as Ethernet does) simplifies the hardware implementation.

It's fairly trivial, but still significantly harder than computing a single CRC.

From stackoverflow:

Because a 32-bit CRC yields only 2³² (approx. 4.29 billion) possible outputs, the Birthday Paradox dictates a 50% chance of an accidental collision after processing just ~77,000 unique inputs.

I've done it for shits and giggles and from memory it took my desktop PC maybe 10 minutes to generate a collision.

You're missing the point though.

Noise is not the only thing they should be protecting against.

The point is that AMD is executing code based on checking using an algorithm that has barely any protection from malicious inputs, which is stupid, and not fixing it just compounds that stupidity.

A cryptographic signature protects against both noise and malicious inputs.

   It's fairly trivial, but still significantly harder than computing a single CRC.

You can do it with a single GF(2) multiplication, ignoring the complications of reflection and such. A normal CRC is just the special case of making the remainder 0 (again ignoring complications). You can also brute force it, but that's a bit slow for 64 bit CRCs and well, nanoseconds vs minutes in your example.

    Noise is not the only thing they should be protecting against.

Sorry, can you point to the comment where I tried to defend AMD's use of CRCs in this particular application? I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't think they're appropriate for cryptographic applications. I was just talking about the math.

Different tools for different purposes. You probably don't want to be using your mac scheme for noise resistance, because then you're paying a cost in either buffer space, PDU size, or retransmits, and your error correction capabilities are nil. CRCs allow some error correction (albeit rarely used and inefficient for multibit errors vs FECs), good bit error detection properties, and are cheap. It's common to use both at different layers of a protocol stack.

I wouldn't.

What a surprise that something this implausible could come from the same guy who proposed trains that run in vacuum tubes.

I can't believe the people who actually listen to this guy can tie their own shoelaces. And somehow he became the richest person on earth. Humans are irredeemable.