krellor

Hey, sorry it took so long to see your question. Here is a paper (PDF) on the subject with diagrams.

https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/42365/eth-4572-01.pdf

The link is composed of two parts, the emitter and the receiver. The emitter captures the LF signal and up-converts it to 2.5 GHz. The obtained 2.5 GHz signal is then amplified and transmitted over the air. The receiver part of the link receives this signal and down-converts it to obtain the original LF signal. This LF signal is then amplified again and sent to a loop LF antenna which reproduces the signal that was emitted by the car in its integrity.

Edit: and here is a times article that covers the problem in one area. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/24/world/canada/toronto-car-theft-epidemic.html

Yeah. Shockingly people store things where it is convenient to have them. :) I’m glad I didn’t have a keyless system to with about.

I did read the article. I’m unfamiliar with the “hacking” tools or methods they mention given they use terms like emulator. I was simply sharing one wireless attack that is common in certain areas and why.

I think most of the wireless attacks aren’t trying to be so sophisticated. They target cars parked at home and use a relay attack that uses a repeater antenna to rebroadcast the signal from the car to the fob inside and vice versa, tricking the car into thinking the fob is nearby. Canada has seen a large spike in this kind of attack. Faraday pouches that you put the fob inside of at home mitigates the attack.

I’m not sure about what the article is referencing, which is probably a little more exotic, but relay attacks are very common against keyless cars. Keyless cars are constantly pinging for their matching fob. A relay attack just involves a repeater antenna held outside the car that repeats the signal between the car and the fob inside the house. Since many people leave the fob near the front of the house, it works and allows thieves to enter and start the car. Canada has has a big problem with car thieves using relay attacks to then drive cars into shipping containers and then sell them overseas.

Thanks for the article, it was a fun read. I’ll have to go back and re-read the majority opinion because I do remember some interesting analysis on it even if I disagree with the outcome.

While not related from a legal standpoint, the use of iPhones and intermediate devices reminds me of a supreme Court case that I wrote a brief about. The crux of it was a steaming service that operated large arrays of micro antenna to pick up over the air content and offer it as streaming services to customers. They uniquely associated individual customers with streams from individual antenna so they could argue that they were not copying the material but merely transmitting it.

I forget the details, but ultimately I believe they lost. It was an interesting case.

I highly recommend Stephen Tetlock’s book, super forecasting, who is the sponsor of the project you mention.

One method of forecasting that he identified as effective was using a spreadsheet to record events that might occur over the next 6-18 months along with an initial probability based on good judgement and the factors you quoted. Then, every day look for new information that adjusts the forecast up or down by some, usually small percent. Repeat, and the goal is you will trend towards a reasonable %. I omitted many details but that was the jist.

Now, that’s for forecasting on a short ish timeframe. There is a place for more open ended reasoning and imagination, but you have to be careful not to fall prey to your own biases.

This particular forecast of OPs feels like it is ignoring several long running trends in technology adoption and user behavior without giving events that would address them, and forecasts something they care about doing better in the long-term, a source of bias to watch. I tend to agree with you that I think elements of this forecast are flawed.

Since everyone else gave a joke answer I’ll take a stab in the dark and say the upper limits would be the availability of hydrogen and physical limitations in transforming heat output into electricity. The hydrogen is the most common element but 96% of it is currently produced from fossil fuels. After that, it would be how well you can scale up turbines to efficiently convert heat to electricity.

Part of that is the racket that is software licensing for mainframes. Many vendors like CA7 charge based on the machines computational capacity. You can introduce soft limits or send usage reports, but not all vendors accept that to lower your price. Super expensive software costs, at least back when I worked on zOS.

Right, Google isn’t one to trust. So paid services and clear data handling practices.

I would say don’t trust free services in general. There are plenty of paid service providers that handle your data well.

Just because they don’t issue a bill doesn’t mean they don’t track costs. They track labor, labor rates, and consumables.

That said, this particular treatment is very involved. They harvest cells over multiple periods, send them to a lab to be modified, and when they are ready they do chemotherapy to kill your immune system, then do a bone marrow transplant to introduce the modified cells, and then you have to be in isolation in a hospital until your immune system comes back. Even the best facilities are saying they can only do 5-10 of these per year.

Pretty crazy.

I agree with the sentiment, but it might be more accurate to say that this is caused by laissez-faire economics rather than invisible hand proponents.

Invisible hand just argues that individuals in the economy, acting in their own self interest, can create a net positive when taken together. E.g., a farmers market has many good to purchase and trade, not through coordinated effort, but self interest of each farmer in growing their crops and bringing them to market for sale and trade. The original treatment doesn’t discuss regulation, but rather the outcomes of individual actors.

Laissez-faire economics is really a pretty pernicious thing that will steal any idea in support of itself. Likewise, laissez-faire economics is more directly a public policy position that many other economic concepts since it directly argues against government intervention in markets. Personally, I’m for strongly regulated markets because I believe in decentralized decision making being efficient and supporting individual freedoms while also preventing negative externalities, and protecting individuals. I also believe that governments should provide strong social safety nets so as to incentive appropriate risk taking in the market. Meaning people are more likely to start a small business if they don’t have to worry about starving in the winter or medical care.

Thank you for attending my TED talk.