really interesting write-up, but for anyone like me who thought "hmm, I've got $20 and a spare SFP slot, maybe I'll play around with this" - the $20 price tag in the headline is a bit misleading:
> The key piece is an Oscilloquartz OSA-5401 ...
> ... New, they cost thousands of dollars. On eBay, a handful of decommissioned units went for $20. Now they’re unavailable. If they do appear (rarely), they’re $300-500.
> Exclusive: SpaceX says unproven AI space data centers may not be commercially viable, filing shows
> SpaceX's S-1 filing highlights risks of unproven space-based AI and interplanetary projects
journalism pet peeve: it should be illegal to put "exclusive" in your headline when the reporting is based on a public document that the company is required by law to file
It's optional, you need to do something to enable the feature that uses it. I use it for a thing I called Booster which enables this permission so I can add some fixers for some sites like youtube, personal stuff, absolutely not required.
if this is accurate, and not some "oops we made a vibe-coding mistake updating our website" I am going to hit the "cancel subscription" button so hard that my desk will break in half.
I have an unlimited-usage API billing plan through my dayjob, but for obvious reasons they don't allow piggybacking personal usage onto that. so I paid for the $20/mo personal plan as an easy and relatively cheap method of professional development / keeping my skills current. I don't particularly mind paying $20/mo, but I'm absolutely not paying $100/mo.
also, part of the reason I didn't mind paying for the personal subscription is that I liked having consistency between the tools I use for my dayjob and the ones I use for side projects. if that goes away, then I might as well switch away from Claude usage at work as well. I very much doubt Anthropic's revenue predictions for this change are taking things like that into account.
making a change like this without an announcement, just sneaky updates to product pages, is also an absolutely unforgivable thing to do, in terms of me trusting them as a company.
> To understand better the ADHD symptomatology experienced by adults, qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 diagnosed adults.
as someone diagnosed & medicated for ADHD, a lot of these additional symptoms ring true for me...but this is essentially a blog post based on interviewing 11 people.
> House managers are not a nanny or a house cleaner. They’re a “chief of staff for the home,” a “personal assistant for Mom,” and “a clone of myself,” according to the more than a dozen people I spoke with who have either hired one or work as one. They are, in effect, what might have once been called a housekeeper—a person who helps oversee a household’s basic functioning.
hiring a (rebranded) housekeeper is a "life hack" now?
I wonder if the Atlantic will pay me to write an article about a life hack that allows you to avoid cooking dinner at home - you go to a building called a "restaurant" and pay them to cook food for you.
WPA3 was announced in 2018 [0]. I don't think it's reasonable to blame them for not anticipating the next decade of cryptographic research.
...but even if they had, what realistically could they have done about it? ML-KEM was only standardized in 2024 [1].
also, the addition of ECDH in WPA3 was to address an existing, very real, not-theoretical attack [2]:
> WPA and WPA2 do not provide forward secrecy, meaning that once an adverse person discovers the pre-shared key, they can potentially decrypt all packets encrypted using that PSK transmitted in the future and even past, which could be passively and silently collected by the attacker. This also means an attacker can silently capture and decrypt others' packets if a WPA-protected access point is provided free of charge at a public place, because its password is usually shared to anyone in that place.
Does it matter if an attacker can decrypt public wifi traffic? You already have to assume the most likely adversary (e.g. the most likely to sell your information) is the entity running the free wifi, and they can already see everything.
It is precisely because the operator of the wifi is not necessarily the adversary a user may be most concerned about. They may be, but they are not the only one. They are the one you know can be, but they aren't the only one.
> You already have to assume the most likely adversary is the entity running the free wifi
why do you have to assume that?
you're at Acme Coffeeshop. their wifi password is "greatcoffee" and it's printed next to the cash register where all customers can see it.
with WPA2 you have to consider N possible adversaries - Acme Coffee themselves, as well as every single other person at the coffeeshop.
...and also anyone else within signal range of their AP. maybe I live in an apartment above the coffeeshop, and think "lol it'd be fun to collect all that traffic and see if any of it is unencrypted".
with WPA3 you only have to consider the single possible adversary, the coffeeshop themselves.
Because it's a near certainty (at least in the US) that businesses will spy on you to the extent that they can, but it's actually incredibly rare to be around a nerd with Wireshark? Things like facebook used to not use https long after public wifi was ubiquitous and you could easily sniff people, and it basically didn't matter. Now nearly everything uses TLS so it really doesn't matter. Actually most public wifi I encounter has no security.
> Actually most public wifi I encounter has no security.
that was also one of the things fixed [0] in WPA3.
it sounds like you don't consider it relevant to your personal threat model. but the experts in charge of the standard apparently thought it was important to have in general.
an /r/AskPhysics thread from 2 weeks ago has pretty much universal doubt that the claims are legit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/1sj7thd/is_the_...
reply