So, are passkeys shareable? The short answer is yes, when managed properly. Read on to learn more about passkeys, how they differ from passwords, and how teams and families can share passkeys without compromising security.
Hurling cars through the air with replicas of medieval siege engines has actually become a bit of a popular hobby, with early throws dating back to at least the early 1990s.
So what does the law truly say across all 50 U.S. states? We've dug through every state's department or bureau of transportation resources and compiled a breakdown of what we found to help shed some light on the matter. All told, we found 23 states with laws that required the use of both wipers and headlights in bad weather, although many more have rules related to the use of headlights in low visibility conditions.
These levers control the Lenco transmission, which is stout enough to harness the power of a spinning neutron star and convert its energy into quarter-mile domination and tire smoke.
Lencos' design is unique. It's as if Lenco racing transmissions snuck up behind some automatic and manual gearboxes in the dark and pilfered the finest attributes of each. From the automatic, it pickpocketed the planetary gears and clutch packs, but left behind the fluid valve-actuated gear selection. From the manual, it nabbed the clutch and flywheel, but ditched the slow H-pattern and dogleg shifters in favor of a series of levers the driver can simply slam into place. Also, the Lenco decided that the clutch directly connected to the engine would only be necessary when starting out in first or reverse. Otherwise, it acts like a dog box transmission, letting you run through the gears sans clutch pedal.
Giving each gear its own lever is kind of an odd decision, though. The setup deserves a place among the weirdest car shifters, looking kind of like the Hurst Lightning Rod from the 1980s Hurst/Olds. Why not a single lever like a sequential gearbox?
Well, the reason many Lenco applications use individual levers is that multi-speed Lencos aren't just one transmission in a single case, but rather separate two-speed transmissions centipeded together. So as the driver pulls a lever, one of the transmissions goes from "low" to "high," which then stacks with the ratio in the next transmission, and the next, and so on. It's separate levers for separate segments, which keeps things simpler, mechanically.
Racers looking for ultimate power handling and direct control over shifting turn to Lenco's magnesium-cased CS1 Standard Design racing transmission, which can handle in excess of 3,500 horses. Lenco also offers more compact CS2, CS3, and CS4 gearboxes, as well the ST1200 Street Strip model and the Lencodrive Automatic.
I called Lenco to see what the fluid change intervals are, and here's what the company told me: For street use, you need to change it after 500 miles following the install, then every time you change the engine oil. For drag racing, high-horsepower applications necessitate new fluids after each event. Lower-horsepower drag racing can extend that to every two or three events. Always inspect the fluid, though, because if it's still clean, you're good. If there's clutch material floating in there, change it. The recommended fluid is a light-grade petroleum-based motor oil.
This page lists various fan-made tools that can help calculations related to the gameplay of Kerbal Space Program. Unlike addons, they do not directly influence the game, as they are run separately.
Performing a transfer from an orbit of one body directly to an orbit of another one seems like serious business. A few guides published on the forums have a lot of maths and stuff, you may think this is too complicated to figure out.
Well, it is rocket science, but: it's not complicated.
In the basic orbiting tutorial, you were introduced to the concept of orbiting, and basic orbit stabilization, as well as an orbital table to help you along. Now, what if you want an orbit that isn't on that table? What if you want to have an orbit with a specific period? That's where these formulae come in.
In the basic orbiting tutorial, you were introduced to the concept of orbiting, and basic orbit stabilization, as well as an orbital table to help you along. Now, what if you want an orbit that isn't on that table? What if you want to have an orbit with a specific period? That's where these formulae come in.
The blue circle is Kerbin itself, the light blue circle around it is the top of the atmosphere. You can click+drag on the left of Kerbin to set periapsis, or on the right of Kerbin for apoapsis. You can also use the text boxes to enter altitudes and velocities numerically.
You need to specify two values in all: either altitudes of periapsis and apoapsis, velocities at periapsis and apoapsis, or both altitude and velocity at either periapsis or apoapsis. You select the values you want to enter with the Parameters menu, the remainder of the information will be computed from the values you put in. If you enter altitude and a velocity above escape velocity, it'll give you excess velocity at infinity. The apoapsis and periapsis textboxes are altitudes above mean sea level (AMSL), the text report below has both altitudes AMSL and distances from the center of Kerbin. Note that if you specify values that lead to an apoapsis lower than periapsis, the plotted orbit and contents of the text fields will be swapped automatically.
This online tool calculates delta-v and CommNet requirements in KSP (a video game, Kerbal Space Program). It helps KSP players plan and solve complex missions. Just like the game, these calculators are made to be interactive and visual to help new players quickly grasp the mechanics of rocket science.
How to Use: Simply select the body you wish to perform orbital synchronization calculations on from the drop-down list, then pick the resonance you wish to place your craft in. Example: If you wanted a 2:3 resonance, enter 2 into Numerator and 3 into Denominator.
Launch Window Planner for Kerbal Space Program
. The federal workforce is actually shrinking, and the number from late 2024 to January 2026 is now up to 12 percent of the workforce, most having left voluntarily. That, folks, is what we call a good start. //
The OPM's data shows that the government's civilian workforce shrank by 12% between September 2024 and January 2026, going from a headcount of 2,313,216 to 2,035,344.
Separate data, also released by the OPM, shows that the majority of employees who left during that time did so voluntarily rather than being forced out, Reuters reported. //
anon-vg5c Random US Citizen
an hour ago
12% is scrapping the mud off your boot.
Need to cut another 64-65% of the Federal Workforce - and start with the IRS, Dept of Labor, Dept of Education, and completely eliminate (if not already done) USAID.
Chardet dispute shows how AI will kill software licensing, argues Bruce Perens • The Register Forums
2 days
habilain
Reply Icon
Re: Prompts?
They did post the design document eventually - https://github.com/chardet/chardet/commit/f51f523506a73f89f0f9538fd31be458d007ab93.
Other people have pored over it, but I suspect that instructions to download things from the original chardet repository mean that the AI generated version can not be considered "clean room". And that's ignoring the likelihood that Claude Code has injested the entirety of the chardet repo during training.
2 days
MonkeyJuiceSilver badge
Reply Icon
Re: Prompts?
It's hard to see how anything an LLM produces could even remotely be described as 'clean room'.
habilain
Reply Icon
Re: Prompts?
Well yes, but the lawyers are still arguing over that, and the legal fights aren't all going in the way that any sensible reading of the facts would indicate.
It's much easier to say "this is not clean room" when the instructions to the AI clearly break the definition of what "clean room implementation" means.
1 day
timrichardson
Reply Icon
Re: Prompts?
I doubt that matters very much.. copyright infringement is based on a level of similarities in two works. A clean room implementation is a defence, but it's not a necessary defence.
3 hrs
habilain
Reply Icon
Re: Prompts?
The issue you'd find is that a) APIs are copyrightable, at least in the USA b) The AI in question was instructed to match the API and c) The AI in question was instructed to use code from the original source. I think that's pretty clear cut.
And besides, the reason why I highlighted "clean room" is Dan Blanchard's repeated insistence that the AI did a clean room implementation - not because of any particular legal merits.
Richard 12Silver badge
Pirate
It's LGPL or public domain now
If this v7 genuinely was mostly generated by an LLM, existing court rulings say that it is not covered by copyright.
Therefore, it cannot be licenced under the MIT either. It is public domain.
Or maybe that's not true and it's still LGPL.
Commercially, who would want to take the risk of touching v7 with a bargepole?
It now cannot ever become part of the Python standard library because it's forever tainted by licence clarity issues.
It would require a court case to sort out whether it's LGPL, MIT, or public domain, and nobody wants to burn the cash on that when they can stick with a v6 fork and avoid all the legal risk.
Charlie ClarkSilver badge
Reply Icon
Re: It's LGPL or public domain now
I think the release was poorly handled – a new release under a different name as with, say, PIL -> pillow (Python Imaging Library) might have been a better approach. There may be some legal challenges in the US but I can't see them going anywhere and then the taint will be gone – well, maybe add something to the licence referring to the original implementation.
A perfectly legal approach, as others have pointed out, would have been to port the library to another language, say Rust. This could then be wrapped or the basis of another perfectly legal port back to Python. All software is essentially the expression of one algorithm or another and these have never been copyrightable.
//
Charlie ClarkSilver badge
Reply Icon
Re: It's LGPL or public domain now
I think the release was poorly handled – a new release under a different name as with, say, PIL -> pillow (Python Imaging Library) might have been a better approach. There may be some legal challenges in the US but I can't see them going anywhere and then the taint will be gone – well, maybe add something to the licence referring to the original implementation.
A perfectly legal approach, as others have pointed out, would have been to port the library to another language, say Rust. This could then be wrapped or the basis of another perfectly legal port back to Python. All software is essentially the expression of one algorithm or another and these have never been copyrightable.
Richard 12Silver badge
Pirate
It's LGPL or public domain now
If this v7 genuinely was mostly generated by an LLM, existing court rulings say that it is not covered by copyright.
Therefore, it cannot be licenced under the MIT either. It is public domain.
Or maybe that's not true and it's still LGPL.
Commercially, who would want to take the risk of touching v7 with a bargepole?
It now cannot ever become part of the Python standard library because it's forever tainted by licence clarity issues.
It would require a court case to sort out whether it's LGPL, MIT, or public domain, and nobody wants to burn the cash on that when they can stick with a v6 fork and avoid all the legal risk.
Charlie ClarkSilver badge
Reply Icon
Re: It's LGPL or public domain now
I think the release was poorly handled – a new release under a different name as with, say, PIL -> pillow (Python Imaging Library) might have been a better approach. There may be some legal challenges in the US but I can't see them going anywhere and then the taint will be gone – well, maybe add something to the licence referring to the original implementation.
A perfectly legal approach, as others have pointed out, would have been to port the library to another language, say Rust. This could then be wrapped or the basis of another perfectly legal port back to Python. All software is essentially the expression of one algorithm or another and these have never been copyrightable.
Earlier this week, Dan Blanchard, maintainer of a Python character encoding detection library called chardet, released a new version of the library under a new software license.
In doing so, he may have killed "copyleft." //
Blanchard says he was in the clear to change licenses because he used AI – Anthropic's Claude is now listed as a project contributor – to make what amounts to a clean room implementation of chardet. That's essentially a rewrite done without copying the original code – though it's unclear whether Claude ingested chardet's code during training and, if that occurred, whether Claude's output cloned that training data. //
The use of AI raises questions about what level of human involvement is required to copyright AI-assisted code.
The US Supreme Court recently refused to reconsider Thaler v. Perlmutter, in which the plaintiff sought to overturn a lower court decision that he could not copyright an AI-generated image. This is an area of ongoing concern among the defenders of copyleft because many open source projects incorporate some level of AI assistance. It's unclear how much AI involvement in coding would dilute the human contribution to the extent that a court would disallow a copyright claim. //
"As far as the intention of the GPL goes, a permissive license is still technically a free software license, but undermining copyleft is a serious act. Refusing to grant others the rights you yourself received as a user is highly [antisocial], no matter what method you use. Now more than ever, with people exploring new ways of circumventing copyright through machine learning, we need to protect the code that preserves user freedom. Free software relies on user and development communities who strongly support copyleft. Experience has shown that it's our strongest defense against similar efforts to undermine user freedom." //
Bruce Perens, who wrote the original Open Source Definition, has broader concerns about the entire software industry.
"I'm breaking the glass and pulling the fire alarm!" he told The Register in an email. "The entire economics of software development are dead, gone, over, kaput!
"In a different world, the issue of software and AI would be dealt with by legislators and courts that understand that all AI training is copying and all AI output is copying. That's the world I might like, but not the world we got. The horse is out of the barn and can't be put back. So, what do we do with the world we got?" ////
The courts are going to have to deal with this, but it really should be legislators thinking and debating it. I think that ultimately, material produced by A/I should be public domain, because you can't hold a computer responsible.
"Computers should not make management decisions because computers cannot be held responsible."
Discounted "borg accounts" are available for technically proficient users:
$0.008 per GB, per month - 200 GB Minimum
Free ZFS filesystem snapshots are not included since you'll be doing versioning and retention with borg.
We will not configure subaccounts, or additional logins, for these borg accounts.
There is NO borg specific technical support or integration engineering. You're here because you're an expert.
You must pay annually.
No other costs. No contracts. Unlimited borg repositories. All transfer/bandwidth/usage is free.
Experts Only No Support
Single Region - 99.9999% resilient
$0.008 per GB per Month
SLA: 99.9999%
Daily: 0.086s
Weekly: 0.6s
Monthly: 2.6s
Quarterly: 7.9s
Yearly: 32s
Source: https://uptime.is/99.9999
Experts Only No Support
Single Region - 99.9999% resilient
$0.008 per GB per Month
On September 26, 2022, NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft crashed into a binary asteroid system. By intentionally ramming a probe into the 160-meter-wide moonlet named Dimorphos, the smaller of the two asteroids, humanity demonstrated that the kinetic impact method of planetary defense actually works. The immediate result was that Dimorphos’ orbital period around Didymos, its larger parent body, was slashed by 33 minutes.
Of course, altering a moonlet’s local orbit doesn’t seem like enough to safeguard Earth from civilization-ending impacts. But now, as long-term observational data has come in, it seems we accomplished more than that. DART actually changed the trajectory of the entire Didymos binary system, altering its orbit around the Sun. //
Because Dimorphos orbits Didymos, some of the ejecta remained trapped in the system, where it altered the mutual orbit between the two rocks. But a crucial fraction of the ejecta achieved escape velocity from the entire binary system. The momentum carried away by the system-escaping debris is what ultimately contributed to shoving the center of mass of the whole Didymos-Dimorphos pair. “In our case, we found that the beta parameter due to DART impact was around two,” Makadia explained.
The debris blasted completely out of the Didymos system gave the asteroids a push roughly equal to the initial impact of the spacecraft itself. //
The goal of DART was primarily to take our planetary defense out of the realm of computer models and get us some hands-on, practical experience, and Makadia thinks we succeeded in doing that. “Our work proves that hitting the secondary asteroid is a viable path for deflecting a binary system away as long as the push is large enough,” he said. “This wasn’t the goal of DART, but we can always design a bigger spacecraft.”