Just curious, what come first and second in this use of the phrase applied to computer security? I came to know the expression from fire circus performance and adjacent circles, where first and second are safety of the audience and the venue, and third is your own. I use it often when I'm about to knowingly do something sketchy or potentially dangerous without applying safety practices required "by the book", acknowledging the present danger to myself and accepting the risk. I never saw it used in infosec context.
Interesting, I haven't heard of safety third from circus circles, I've always known it as more along the liens of if safety were actually the number one priority, no one would actually do anything because it's too risky.
In terms of cybersecurity, I see it as "security first" culture means people rely on the system to keep them safe. "Safety third" (or security third) emphasizes that everyone should already know they are operating in a risky and dangerous environment and take security as a personal responsibility.
It's just a reminder that no one cares about your life more than you do, so stay vigilant and take personal responsibility.
edit just realized I didn't actually answer your question on the first and second priorities.
I suppose First would be the reason the system exists in the first place (buy something online, for example). Second would be the user experience of doing the thing. Security should help you take calculated risks rather than prevent you from taking any risks at all.
> it can say that it’s a controller and it will give the bus address to talk to and a polling rate.
Many moons ago (over 25 years) I was an EE hobbyist working with an inventor, working adjacent to a major game controller manufacturer. The controllers I was prototyping weren't getting polled by the OS. I was just using the USB HID Class and sending "Button Up" and "Button Down" messages using Interrupt Transfers. Are game controllers using Isochronous transfer now or is there some other method that's developed in the last quarter century?
I was under the impression that Core War was pretty much a solved problem with multiple optimal warrior types in a rock-paper-scissors circular dominance. I have been somewhat interested in Core War for decades now, but I admit I haven't done any real deep dives into the history/evolution of the game. Does anyone have any suggested reading on how Core Warriors have progressed over the years and what the current status is? I follow /r/corewar but it seems pretty dead.
I am currently working on my own ALife simulation partly because of my (possibly mistaken) belief that progress on Core War had dead-ended. Discovering that there may still be more to do in this realm with Core War probably won't stop me working on my project, but I'd be interested to hear what is still going on.
I'm working on Mutacortechs, an ALife simulation where "organisms" each have their own emulated 16-bit processor with 64K RAM. Like Core Wars for the 21st century. It's a small project compared to what some others here are working on, but it's an order of magnitude larger than anything this embedded EE has ever written. I have the ISA designed, assembler complete, emulator stage 1 complete (160/204 instructions implemented), and the start of the simulation working. Last night I wrote a program in custom assembly for an "organism" that looked around, found food, moved toward it, and ate it. I'm pretty excited by the milestone!
They're called "processing tomatoes" and it's a very interesting crop and industry. Bred for a narrow ripening window, to be machine harvestable, and shippable in massive bulk.
If you're reading this far down this comment chain, you might find this interesting:
The paperclip maximizer is a thought experiment described by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003. It illustrates the existential risk that an artificial general intelligence may pose to human beings were it to be successfully designed to pursue even seemingly harmless goals and the necessity of incorporating machine ethics into artificial intelligence design. The scenario describes an advanced artificial intelligence tasked with manufacturing paperclips. If such a machine were not programmed to value living beings, then given enough power over its environment, it would try to turn all matter in the universe, including living beings, into paperclips or machines that manufacture further paperclips.
>What's with the entire dev board crammed in there? Is that... normal?
Yep. I designed boards for cameras like this (and the vehicles they are mounted on) for 20 years. When you're only going to sell ~30 a year, and it's going into a $7k enclosure, the extra $7 for the dev board you used during prototyping isn't even a consideration. Go ahead and design around the breadboard, at this low volume it's WAY cheaper than the time to re-design the support circuitry from scratch and it gives you time to start working on the NEXT project that has already been sold to customers with a delivery date quickly looming.
Many times I have heard the tech stack for the subsea industry called "Shop & Glue."
Not affiliated, just thought it was a neat idea when I stumbled upon it during some hobby weather research last year:
ForecastAdvisor will show you the accuracy of the major weather forecasters, including AerisWeather, Foreca, Microsoft, the National Weather Service, OpenWeather, The Weather Channel, Wetter.com, WeatherBit, World Weather Online, and others. They also provide links to your city's weather forecast from all the other weather forecasters, so you can compare for yourself.
