What's the threat scenario where forcing a password reset increases security? I'm genuinely curious, because I feel it's often the case that password expirations might introduce more threats than they mitigate.
> What's the threat scenario where forcing a password reset increases security? I'm genuinely curious, because I feel it's often the case that password expirations might introduce more threats than they mitigate.
Not every reset is due to expiration... e.g. if you know a user reused a password from a different service that got hacked on your service, you should probably make them reset it...
I've heard great things about Vega [1], which sits on top of D3. It's a dependency of OpenSearch Dashboards, allowing users to create custom dashboards on log and observability data [2]. The vega library might alleviate some of the concerns others are expressing about the learnability of D3.
I hate when writers describe plants as an ongoing carbon sink. They are a one-time carbon sink. So using "cars" as a comparison to carbon volumes is confusing, because cars will keep emitting after a plant is full grown and starts shedding leaves and wood that turn back into methane or carbon dioxide.
The key benefit of the plants is cooling the city without electricity, which is an ongoing effect.
Similarly, we can't plant enough trees to offset our total carbon emission because we've released SOOO much carbon that was previously just buried underground as oil. We would need to plant more trees than we have ever seen.
Are you saying that the prevalence of trees among good-performing solutions is not related to superior performance of trees over other architectures, but rather that more people are trying them out and they will show up in the winning solutions more often because of the implementation rate?
I haven't followed prediction contests for a while because, frankly, the field has moved on (more sideways, actually, with LLMs).
When I used to follow, until a few years ago, the winning models were ensembles of ensembles (e.g., RF is an ensemble). The fact that the best single models are ensembles, or evolutions of ensembles, is therefore not surprising.
When dealing with numerical data, squeezing blood from the stones, which is what happens in the latter stages of the prediction competition, is very rarely worth squeezing in the real world.
When the model is not mechanistic but only correlative (almost all models are not purely correlative or mechanistic, anyway), getting to the last decimal place of mean absolute error or a similar metric requires building an increasingly complex structure over which we have little control upon a building that has its foundation of sand. All it takes is a little wind, such as a change in the distribution of data over time-which always happens-and unstable structures are bound to collapse.
The model provided by -the manufacturer- correction NAVAIR (thanks OP!), stated that the cable will bounce up after having been hit by the landing gear. Thus the hook design made sense. The cable jumps up and over the hook. Plane arrested.
Instead, again as the article states, the cable is actually being pressed tightly against the flight deck and the elevated hook nose makes the entire hook get thrown up in the air when drawn over the tight cable, back towards the plane and would even destroy some parts of the monitoring mechanisms, so violently did that happen.
They also provide the new design, which is basically the old design and that is also why the techs that saw the new hook for the very first time (and know about the cable I presume) instantly said "That ain't gonna work!".
Minor correction, the wire dynamics model was provided by Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), the Navy engineering organization in control of research, development, test, evaluation, and sustainment of Navy aircraft.
I would actually love to know if someone on the hook design team questioned the model. I guess we won't know but I also it doesn't hurt to ask.
Like did someone go: odd, why would that cable go up and not tighten when waves are sent through it towards the outward attachments? But was inevitably shut down and didn't have "access to the customer" to ask/verify.
Like one of the first things to ask for when having to design this that comes to my mind is: I want high speed camera footage of current arrestor in action at the customer site!
Even if two different aircraft have the same space constraints for the hook (which is a pretty big if), they have different mass and deceleration characteristics (i.e. minimum and maximum approach velocity) during landing- changing the force exerted on the hook. Designing a lighter hook for the lower loaded aircraft is VERY desirable for high tech fighter jets- every ounce saved is better range, better agility, etc.
As far as the little lip at the very tip of the hook- it looks to me like the initial design was trying to minimize any risk of digging into the flight deck and causing damage- this is just a guess though.
“After the LSO finished what he had to say and left the ready room my B/N allowed that he might fly with me again. Me, I was still shaking inside.
The next morning I went up on the flight deck before flight ops started and walked to the aft edge of the deck. I was looking for something and found it.
About one foot from the end, there was a single, shiny, brand new, solitary hook imprint in the deck.”
Due to the planes and to the rest of the tailhook (the shank, etc.), they could hit at different angles, speeds, etc. That's just a guess, however.
Each plane costs ~$100 million and the entire program will cost over $1 trillion when it's done. Performance needs are extreme: They need to land in all sorts of adverse, imperfect conditions - damage to the plane, the carrier, the wire, the personnel; bad weather; bullets and missiles flying around. It seems worthwhile to design the highest-performing tailhook for this plane, rather than to save a few bucks.
Also, IME people doing something this sophisticated don't miss those really simple, obvious issues that we happen to be able to observe and grasp from the outside.
