- 82comments
- 49comments
- 8comments
- 377comments
- 3comments
- 168comments
- 37comments
- 7comments
- 521comments
- 7comments
- 121comments
- 95comments
- 174comments
- 12comments
- 299comments
- 358comments
- 16comments
- 23comments
- 22comments
- 87comments
- 47comments
- 4comments
- 44comments
- 6comments
- 120comments
- 6comments
- 115comments
- 5comments
- 276comments
- 6comments
Magic, got it.
(I am floored that this works. This is amazing.)
I’m away from computer so only skimmed the article until I noticed they use the ADG90x RF switch family.
IIRC that family has a single positive supply rail, and they make a nagative rail internally. The advantage is easy of implementation but you also inject some noise depending on switch position. Is this dealt with in the pub?
They do conduct an experiment to control for both switching noise, or other feed-through transmissions. They put two 50 ohm terminators on as the load, and find the receiver gets nothing. They also try cooling down one of the loads in liquid hydrogen, and the transmission resumes.
And when there are more than one transmitters in real world conditions instead of anechoic chamber?
It's cool and all and if this work is for it's own sake, for the sake of research, no issues. But otherwise, I struggle to think of practical use cases. I grant that my imagination may be deficient.
I guess your not on Twitter. It's not a coincidence this research paper from 2022 got posted today.
What happened today ?
I think someone from OpenAI said something like "air gapping AI can't (hypothetically) work because it will figure out a way to basically morse code across the airgap". (I think this was in response to people calling them out for not airgapping)
All things well-known for good two decades and written about by x-risk/LessWrong crowd, but to date continued to be dismissed as lunacy.
On one hand it's great to see it demonstrated in practice in concrete terms, on the other hand it's sad we have to basically make the mistakes ourselves, with live and close-to-dangerous systems, because we can't believe the obvious warnings.
You're likely not familiar with TEMPEST/EMSEC but this stuff was known about and discussed when designing air gaps going back to the 60s..
https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/decla...
the x-risk/LessWrong crowd aren't adding anything to the conversation that seriously people haven't already considered.
Maybe it's more of theoretical interest, e.g. the interplay between thermodynamics and information theory, etc.
Figure 9C in the paper shows testing in a wooded area. Figure 9F shows transmitted data collected in a residential building, so not a test chamber.
This is extremely strange. Shouldn't this be impossible by the second law of thermodynamics?
Receiving more energy when a resistor in thermal equilibrium is connected to an antenna seemingly implies that energy gets transferred from an antenna with a resistor to a an antenna without a resistor, even at thermal equilibrium.
Maybe we'll later find it's an experimental subtlety, like the faster than light neutrinos.
AI will explain it, but it's against HN rules for me to post the explanation.
Basically they are misleading when they say "thermal equilibrium", same physical temperature does not imply thermal equilibrium.
Thanks for not being a fuckwad who just copies an AI answer. I appreciate you understanding it and putting it in your own words.
FWIW, the "Significance" blurb at the very top says as much:
(I assume it's not AI-generated.)
Now consider the alignments of red blood cells.
usage limit reached, resets at 7:50AM