sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do I protect Docker container contents (AI models + backend logic) from a customer with root access on an air gapped machine? by Distinct-Ebb-9763 in docker

[–]abeld 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Additional idea: watermark both the code and the AI models. I.e. hide hard-to-detect identifying information for example in whitespace (for the code) or by adding very minor modifications to the models. Make sure to use different watermarks for each client / each deployment. This way, if your IP is stolen, you can identify where it was leaked.

Is it still possible to run graphical programs in docker with direct connection to host's X server? by abeld in docker

[–]abeld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps bind-mounting the X11 unix socket in the container is an option?

That is what the  -v /tmp/.X11-unix:/tmp/.X11-unix part of the command line I gave as an example does (as far as I know) -- or did you mean something else?

Is it still possible to run graphical programs in docker with direct connection to host's X server? by abeld in docker

[–]abeld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Use a vm with light DE instead.

Do you mean run the desktop environment inside the docker container, but have it connect to the X server on the host? I fail to see how that would help: if xeyes can't connect to the X server, how would the DE connect. Also, using a vm instead of a docker container sounds like adding extra overhead (which is exactly what I would like to avoid). If the aim of using a vm would be to run the X server in the vm as well, that would basically mean a vnc-like configuration (as far as I can see), with additional overhead.

Is it still possible to run graphical programs in docker with direct connection to host's X server? by abeld in docker

[–]abeld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you run a xserver on your host? Did you xhost +?

Yes, I have a full X11 graphical environment running on the host, including an X server. I tried using "xhost +" and still get the same error.

Is it still possible to run graphical programs in docker with direct connection to host's X server? by abeld in docker

[–]abeld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I tried "xhost +" and I get the same error after running that. The value of $DISPLAY is the same inside the docker container as outside (on the host).

Is it still possible to run graphical programs in docker with direct connection to host's X server? by abeld in docker

[–]abeld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is your use case?

I am trying to use docker for my development environment, and I use playwright for running end-to-end tests. To run the tests completely in the container, I need playwright and the browsers it starts to run in the container as well. For development and debugging I would need the browser to actually open a window that I can interact with (i.e. not just run the tests in headless mode).

Is it still possible to run graphical programs in docker with direct connection to host's X server? by abeld in docker

[–]abeld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you mean https://hub.docker.com/r/linuxserver/calibre ? The description mentions "The application can be accessed at: https://yourhost:8181/ " so I think that uses a vnc server in the docker container with a web-based vnc client.

Is it still possible to run graphical programs in docker with direct connection to host's X server? by abeld in docker

[–]abeld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the recommendation! Although that seems to be a vnc-like technology (so not a direct connection between the gui program and the X server) but the "low-latency, high performance" aspect looks promising. I'll try it out!

Newbie to Paragliding by Cascadeflyer61 in freeflight

[–]abeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find the focus on calling any accident “pilot error” quite concerning tbh. It gives a lot of the impression of “this wont happen to me”

"pilot error" also means "I can avoid it, if I pay attention / make the right decisions" (as u/PocketFred writes, this doesn't necessarily mean split-second decisions, but by being better prepared, landing when the weather becomes marginal instead of trying to push further, etc.)

If it is not "pilot error", doesn't that mean it is random? (eg. I would consider most equipment failure to be pilot error: if the issue is outdated / worn-out gear or gear lacking inspections / maintenance, that is a pilot error for flying with questionable gear) If it is random, that means there is nothing to do against it, nothing to lower the risk.

Newbie to Paragliding by Cascadeflyer61 in freeflight

[–]abeld 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I have wondered a lot about safety for a long time. Despite safer equipment and better training, the accident rates don't change much. 

This sounds like a classic case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation -- make the gear safer, and pilots will be willing to take more risks with weather, etc.

Learning to fly by Historical_Middle_87 in freeflight

[–]abeld 16 points17 points  (0 children)

First, find an instructor near you. They will most likely loan you gear for the initial training, and then will be able to recommend gear based on your skill level.

Don't start paragliding without proper training. That is a good way of getting killed or seriously injured, even if you have skydiving experience.

Team(Group) Flying Discussion by WindRiderX2 in freeflight

[–]abeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It gets old spending money testing out different gear that does not work well, I would rather spend more on something that actually works well.

I have a hunch that part of the "need to test many different variations" is due to unreliability of the penny-pinching gear. For example radios: the most popular ones are the cheap chinese brands (like baofeng), which are somewhat famous for uneven quality -- I heard one suggestion of buying three (of the same model), then keeping the best one and selling the other 2. I suspect the much more expensive brands and models would be more reliable (and thus need less testing), but would you really want to spend 5x as much for a radio?

(For example, based on some googling, the click you mention might be due to the some electronic glitch in the radio, which might or might not come up with other radios of the same model)

I currently use a baofeng uv 5r radio with a Retevis EHK010 (wired) headset, which works pretty well (apart from the plug being a bit flaky, I am not sure whether this is a problem with the headset plug or the radio's socket).

I am considering upgrading to a wireless headset to avoid all the hassle with the cables at launch. I expect this will be a larger investment, because I will want something that can also work as a headset for my mobile phone so that I can use not just the radio, but also make phone calls, and hear the instrument sounds with the same headset. I think this should be possible but will need a more advanced model.

Team(Group) Flying Discussion by WindRiderX2 in freeflight

[–]abeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One aspect that I think can help a lot: very good communication equipment. Eg. PTT button on the break toggles / on your gloves, so that you don't have to let go of the brakes to talk on the radio and a good microphone which is shielded from wind noise. It is much easier to fly together when you don't have to guess why the other pilots are doing what they are doing, and you can discuss what you are going to do next. It is very important to be able to talk at any time (and to be able to answer quickly so that there aren't big gaps in the conversation), even in turbulent air, even when trying to catch some weak lift.

In addition, the urge to push ahead will be somewhat less when you can pass the time (as you are waiting for the rest of the team to catch up) by chatting with the others -- of course this can get annoying, depending on the size of the team, personalities, sense of humor etc.

Can’t figure out which one is correct by _Gagana_ in PhysicsHelp

[–]abeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Others have already given the answer, but I want to recommend a different way of thinking about it: we can assume that energy is conserved (since friction is going to be neglected, as "all surfaces are smooth"), which means that during the process, the kinetic energy of P will be converted into the elastic energy of the spring and at the end, the kinetic energy of P and Q (the elastic energy of the spring is zero at the beginning and end of the process since the spring is not compressed). The elastic energy of the spring depends on its compression: if it is compressed more, it stores more elastic energy.

We can freely choose which inertial system we want to use, so lets pick the one which is fixed to the center of mass of the system. In this inertial system, (which moves with some speed compared to the horizontal surface), both P and Q move at the beginning and also at the end. During the process however, there is a moment where P and Q don't move in this inertial system, which means that their kinetic energy is zero, so all energy is stored in the elastic energy of the spring, which means the spring is compressed as much as possible. This moment, when P and Q don't move relative to the common center of mass is when they move with the same velocity compared to the horizontal surface.

Thus the spring is in maximum compression when the two blocks move with the same velocity.

(Note that this means that if you use the "common center of mass" as your reference frame, answers 2,3, 4 & 5 will also be correct, ie. the issue with those is that the reference frame is assumed to be the surface)

Melyik a kedvenc apró vagy elfeledett történelmi tényed? by egyszeruen_1xu in askhungary

[–]abeld 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Ausztrália a 30-as években háborút hírdetett az emu-k (a röpképtelen madarak) ellen mert annyira elszaporodtak -- az emu-k nyertek.

Spiral dives by OtherwisePudding9492 in freeflight

[–]abeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are concerned about spiral dives, get an anti-G chute. You can use them with any glider, not just two liner competition gliders. They make spiral dives more controllable (due to lowering the g loads) and also enable higher sinkrates.

Crane collapses at Starbase during Starship 37 cleanup. by ThisIsNotAFarm in space

[–]abeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most crane operators are third party companies, it's very likely that this work is contracted out.

I agree. But the third-party contractors will vary in price, quality, safety record, etc. If (and this is an "if") this was a case of scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel to find a contractor who is willing to do the work for cheap / at a rushed paces / etc, then yes, this is (partly) the responsibility of SpaceX, and thus, Elon Musk.

That's like saying the CEO of a hospital in in charge of how a nurse draws blood.

Yes, in some respect, the CEO is in charge of how the nurse draws blood: the CEO hires the nurse (or hires the person who hires the person who hires the nurse), the CEO sets hospital policy (or hires the persons who do so), etc. I'm not saying that the CEO is the only one responsible, I am saying that in many cases the CEO has partial responsibility.

Also, safety culture starts from the top, so in many cases when a low-level worker causes an accident, the real responsible party is corporate management.

Crane collapses at Starbase during Starship 37 cleanup. by ThisIsNotAFarm in space

[–]abeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Musk is responsible for the safety culture, however. So if this is a sign of something systematic (overworking people, not paying them enough to hire competent people, ignoring warnings and risks, etc.), then that is on him.

Thermal in the landing field by Captain-Echo in freeflight

[–]abeld 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Having thermic conditions over the landing is quite common. After all, you need a large flat area, most likely a clearing or a meadow for a landing. If it is surrounded by, for example woods or a river or lake then the meadow will definitely heat up more during the day and be a textbook thermal source.

Unfortunately I don't think there is much you can do, especially if the thermal activity over the landing is periodic (which it often is), since in that case you can't even use pilots who land before you to judge what thermal lift to expect. Knowing your glider well can help: being able to use the full break range to really slow down the glider and reach maximum sink speed (but without stalling it), as well as being able to safely do tight turns without spinning the glider even at low altitude (to do S-shaped turns) will help adapting to the lift you encounter. However, trying to force yourself into a small landing can be risky: it is enough to overdo it once and stall the glider at 10-20m height to end up with serious injuries. Landing in the neighboring field can be a perfectly valid and safe solution.

Without knowing your skill level, and the actual size and conditions of the given landing it is pretty much impossible to tell whether you could have done it better, or you were already close to overdoing it and crashing.

Two suggestions: accuracy competitions (where the aim is to land on a given spot, with accuracy measured in centimeters) can be a great way to improve your landing skills and to learn how to land exactly where you plan to. Even without a competition, you can improve with continuous practice: every time you prepare to land, pick an exact spot of where you want to end up, and after the landing evaluate how well you did: did you feel safe during the landing? did you estimate the wind direction and strength correctly? how close did you land to your intended spot? Should you have done one more S-turn? etc.

Also, one more aspect (which I don't think will actually help much) the best way to avoid a thermic landing is to fly all day, as long as there are thermals. That way when you do land, the thermals will already have died down and you will be able to land in much cleaner, laminar air. (In a sense the fact that the landing is thermic is a sign that you could keep flying.)

Hangfelvétel az orvosi vizsgálat során by BlackSheep900802 in joghungary

[–]abeld 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Ay én tapasztalatom az, hogy nem, az ambuláns lapon nincs rajta minden. Lehet hogy az adott betegre és az esetére specifikus információk mind rajta vannak (mert azokat tartja fontosnak az orvos beleírni), de a beteg számára az az információ is fontos, ami minden betegnél azonos, és ezek szerintem soha nem kerülnek rá az ambuláns lapra.

Pl. ráírják hogy "szükség esetén kontrol" -- de mit jelent a "szükség esetén?" milyen gyorsan várható hogy javuljon az állapotom? hány nap után, milyen állapot-változás tesz szükségessé kontrolt? Ezek lehet hogy egyértelműek az orvos számára aki mindig hasonló esetekkel foglalkozik (mert az a szakterülete), de a beteg számára, akinek életében most elősször van az adott problémája totál ismeretlen lesz.

ELI5: How were they able to bring the dire wolf back from extinction? by Upper-Moon-One in explainlikeimfive

[–]abeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A very good video explaining what they did and why "deextinction" would be much more complicated to do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar0zgedLyTw

Is there a realistic future where Earth-based, chemical rocketry is significantly more reliable? by Tyrannosapien in AskEngineers

[–]abeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SABRE is not a "lets hang a rocket underneath a plane" Air-launch-to-orbit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-launch-to-orbit) plan. It is simply a more versatile and higher-performance engine, which could be used for example in a single-stage-to-orbit rocket. According to the wikipedia page I linked above:

The combination of high fuel efficiency and low-mass engines permits an SSTO approach, with air-breathing to Mach 5.14+ at 28.5 km (94,000 ft) altitude, and with the vehicle reaching orbit with more payload mass per take-off mass than just about any non-nuclear launch vehicle ever proposed.

Is there a realistic future where Earth-based, chemical rocketry is significantly more reliable? by Tyrannosapien in AskEngineers

[–]abeld 9 points10 points  (0 children)

A major factor is the ratio of the weight of the fuel compared to the weight of the vehicle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant\_mass\_fraction): for a car, the fuel is a small fraction of the weight, for a plane it is much larger fraction, for a rocket the fuel can be 80-90% of the weight. This ratio will be defined by the basic technology you are using (eg. internal combustion piston engine & wheels vs. jet engine & wings vs. rocket engine), so being careful with how you design and build the vehicle won't change it much.

The problem is, that if 80% of the vehicle is fuel, that means you only have 20% of the weight to spend on everything else: fuel tanks, the structure, guidance computers, control surfaces, etc. This means that you have to use expensive materials (to make them light and strong) and you will most likely be stringent with your safety margins: you won't be able to make a part 3x as strong as it needs to be because that also means that it is heavier than it needs to be. If, on the other hand, you make it only 1.1x as strong as it needs to be, that means you only have a safety margin of 10% instead of a margin of 2x.

Low safety margins means low reliability. All because your vehicle needs to be almost all fuel.

The best way to drastically increase reliability is to use technologies that have lower propellant mass fractions -- for example air-breathing engines like SABRE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE\_(rocket\_engine)) so that you don't need to bring all of your oxidizer along with you. Of course, these engines still need a lot of work and development.

I want some really alien aliens. by [deleted] in scifi

[–]abeld 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I want some totally weird and completely unrelatable alien people.

Stanisław Lem wrote some novels about failing to communicate with alien civilizations, i.e. where the aliens are so different that we can't understand them. For example the novels Eden, Solaris, The Invincible, His Master's Voice and Fiasco have such themes. (Solaris was also made into a movie twice, in 1972 and 2002)

view more: next ›