Posts by kernel_panic 14 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Jan 2020
I understand to a large extent the mid range American buying into all the cr@p the mainstream media pushes but here too?? really? I thought we'd be technocrats above all things and here we have a guy who's pushing the boundaries and turning science fiction into science fact. Don't we ALL want this to work?
While I truly enjoy watching competition unfold in this exciting field, these two use cases are not comparable. The whole idea of methalox is that it can be refined in other planets e.g. Mars so unless the Chinese rocket is meant to go there, there's a questionable debate on any advantages against LOX and other fuels just to get to orbit (and back?) Re payload, a trip to Mars takes forever.. so the math seems to favour larger size vs multiple smaller rockets in order to take vast payloads to it. Even if you were to send multiple rockets they'd all have to fly roughly at the same time to take advantage of the window of opportunity provided by the orbits, then add landing risks in Mars multiplied by various units vs just one etc.. list is endless.
Long story short, SpaceX's Starship and this one are not meant for the same role
People tend to forget that whomever wants to access the lawful intercept interfaces must go through often 2 or more firewalled networks meaning there are multiple barriers before you even get to an access prompt. All access is logged and kept in line with industry and regulatory certifications. If someone manages to crack all those failsafes and gain unauthorised access I'd like to hire that person thank you very much
And here I thought a tech audience would wet their pants at the mere possibility of a humanoid robot built by the same person that was told EVs were inviable and reusable rockets nothing short of impossible.
But don't stop on my account and do carry on, I never miss a chance to learn from robotics and business experts :D
I've done dozens if not hundreds of risk assessments in my career. When you analyse a threat, it is paramount to consider the actor, target, likelihood and impact of a risk if it were to materialise (amongst other things of course). Picture this:
risk in question: the code could allow China to eavesdrop on the drone users' activities
if the user is the US military --> significant risk, with deep implications that can lead to loss of life
if the user is the US gov --> high risk that could lead to political espionage, large scale economic impact, civil unrest, etc. even potential loss of life (long list)
if the user is you or me --> medium to low risk depending on volume of surveillance/data siphoned (widespread vs small audience). No one will die bc China discovers you like to zoom in on your sunbathing hot neighbour in the summer
Enter risk mitigations:
You can mitigate #3 by forcing the company to do independent code analysis, open source their code (or invite them to use OS if possible), etc.
You could mitigate #2 by doing the above in more detail + gov-led analysis, etc. or even just choose a different supplier
You would most likely ban the tech and choose another supplier for #1 - this is common sense.
So you see, an all-or-nothing approach is hardly ever the right solution. Which makes me think there's a broader, more complex political agenda in place ;-)
"can simply be farmed out to other Chinese makers"
I strongly recommend you read up on the effort required to manufacture any chipset of any architecture 7nm or lower (or ask Intel as per their latest earnings call). It's not as simple as you say. It takes time to shift away from someone like TSMC who has been doing it for a long time. The shift WILL happen, but it will take a bit of time.
At the risk of sounding painfully obvious, if we knew for certain whether an alleged infringement is true, then we as consumers could make a conscious decision on our purchases to decide whether we want to be complicit or not. Right now these things add a bitter taste to the process of buying an Apple product, but is it founded? Better transparency is needed, somehow.
We, the end consumer are the ultimate driving force. No demand, no business.
Irrespective of anyone's political's stance, the way forward always was to define and agree on a wider 5G (and future Gs) standard for all carriers and vendors, comprising a comprehensive list of risks and mitigations to cover all key use cases and then let customers decide based on their risk appetite. It's not rocket science. We have it for other industries so why not just get on with it and cut across all the FUD?
Also note the UK ban itself is on the basis that NCSC stated they can no longer assure control over Huawei BECAUSE of the new bans imposed by the US. So in essence they're technically correct. The root cause is elsewhere and is painfully obvious it's driven by politics and business as Mr. Orange is yet to publish some hard evidence.
By 2027 when we finish removing 5G kit Huawei will likely be on 6G or perhaps even farther ahead.
Oh well..
.- "Huawei is heavily subsidised by the Chinese state" sounds like a statement right out of the textbook our pals across the pond are reading.
In any case I'd add "potentially" or "possibly" to that sentence to make the article logically sound, unless you know something we peasants don't! ;-). By all means I think they've received tax breaks but they're no different to those any company - including foreign - would receive for e.g. R&D within a special economic zone like Shenzhen. Just sayin'
