Well if you use the Bitcoin network as a metric, there's roughly 3 billion GH/s (which is really two chained SHA1 in hardware), and realtimebitcoin.info claims this is ~2000 MW. If you compare that to the 9 billion GH that the shattered article claims are needed, then that indicates it would take a network equivalent in size to the Bitcoin network ~3 seconds and ~1'600 kWh. There's no indication how "lucky" a 9 billion GH collision is, so perhaps it would be longer or shorter based on the statistics.
Looking at it from the other direction, they claim 110 GPU-years. A GeForce GTX 1080 is claimed to be 180 W. That's 175'000 kWh. If you assume that dedicated hardware ASICs are 100x more power efficient than the card I claimed, that has at least a similar order of magnitude. To do it in an hour would take a million graphics cards, and ~200 MW.
That's not entirely true. You could fork a popular git repo, and then make some kind of patch for a bug in some seldomly changed file. Then force a collision in the new file with the benign change as well as your poisoned version. Then they could convince you to pull in the changes. Then they could reset their repository to the one with the poisoned version and anyone who pulls from them first would get the poisoned version of the file instead of the right one. It seems extremely unlikely that a practical attack would come out of this though.
Imagine the NSA publishing a crypto algorithm and contributes it to openSSL or some hypothetical crypto library using git. If they commit their new algorithm, everyone will be looking at that. They could do something devious like tinker with the way random numbers are generated elsewhere and reduce the possible keyspace of another algorithm to something very small and easy to brute force.
When this keyspace shortening is found out it would be hard or impossible to track back. No amount of inspecting the files that reportedly changed would reveal that the NSA did this.
Is it though? There's only 230k words in that list, and most words aren't that long. Building a trie and then trying all the permutations of all of the words seems like it would finish in a reasonable amount of time. Even then O(n^2) approach of comparing pairwise would probably get you to a reasonable time. Especially since this is a one-time thing and doesn't get run over and over.
And your argument is kind of silly when in the very same article when he uses brute force to see how many segments. Shouldn't he have found the most optimal algorithm for that instead of brute forcing it?
Sorting the words is significantly easier in virtually every programming language than testing all of the permutations. So the "it should finish in a reasonable amount of time" isn't a good excuse, since you're doing more work than necessary in order to implement the suboptimal solution.
For a, you can put a sacrificial anode on the frame. Given that the rate of corrosion should be known, the size of it can be calculated to however long the pod is expected to be in service.
I will say that my only experience with sacrificial anodes is that they help but don't prevent corrosion entirely. We had screws starting to turn to dust from a couple hundred hours of pool water exposure even with a sizeable anode. Maybe it wasn't in sufficient contact or whatever. They're unlikely to be curealls anyway.
One thing about sacrificial anodes is that multiple seem to be required. E.g. even though the hull of a ship may be a good conductor, you don't just have one sacrificial anode.
Wikipedia ["Galvanic anode"]: The arrangement of the anodes is then planned so as to provide an even distribution of current over the whole structure. For example, if a particular design shows that a pipeline 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) long needs 10 anodes, then approximately one anode per kilometere would be more effective than putting all 10 anodes at one end or in the centre.
I came here to say the exact same thing. The resistance of the metal surface will mean you want to cover the metal needing protection all around. I think dependant on the salinity of the water different metals should be tested to best suit you environment.
Basically, the reason that things corrode is that there are dissimilar metals, one with more electrons than the other creating a voltage between them. So your part is a battery and the ocean is the "wire". The electrons move from your part (corroding them), to other parts with less electrons. If instead you have a sacrificial piece of zinc, the zinc has more electrons than your part so the electrons will come from the sacrificial piece of zinc instead of your part. Think of it like a lightning rod, but for corrosion instead of lightning. It's more complicated than this, but that's the general idea.
"They are made from a metal alloy with a more "active" voltage (more negative reduction potential / more positive electrochemical potential) than the metal of the structure. The difference in potential between the two metals means that the galvanic anode corrodes, so that the anode material is consumed in preference to the structure."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode
I worked on a 120m old passenger ship for a while. During dry-dock each year we'd put 8 or so 2kg (ish) zinc anodes around the hull, a welded bracket around each one.
The trouble was that they're pretty expensive, and zinc has a great resale value - so we had to do extra watches around the lower decks with rigged firehoses to try and stop local divers stealing them who knew we'd just come out of drydock. (This was in the Philippines). We lost several that way.
I don't work in avionics, but in another field with two pilots. Most things are done by exclusive control meaning there is a selector for which station has the flight stick. But for shared control the way it works is the first station that has non-zero inputs takes exclusive control until they have zero inputs for a short period of time. Although in our case, the availability of two sticks is for hardware redundancy rather than pilot redundancy so the Boeing approach seems safer.
Have you read the book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blondie24. It seems like both of your strategies have similar high-level approaches of self-play and learning, although yours is much more nuanced. They are using an neural network that uses an evolutionary algorithm to update the neural network based on which ai's win against the other ones in self-play.
You can still do this at hardware stores in the US. You put your nuts and bolts in the plastic bag and write down the price and quantity and then they add them up at the register. I was really shocked as a teenager when I realized they just "trusted" you to do it correctly.
Worked in a busy bike shop as a kid and sometimes you would have someone come through the door after a nut or bolt. I would go to the workshop and spend quite a bit of time finding the bolt, then I would only be able to charge 50p for it. By the time I had came back I could have used that time to serve a customer after some real purchases, e.g. a whole bicycle. There wouldn't even be any 'word of mouth' benefits, the bolt could be for a lawnmower or something and the customer could be far too wedded to their tin box vehicle for there to be the chance to upgrade them to a bicycle.
Anyway, it was not cost effective to do personal service bolt sales, at 50p a time, had I been smarter I would have had a big box of random bolts under the counter and made things 'self service'.
Looking at it from the other direction, they claim 110 GPU-years. A GeForce GTX 1080 is claimed to be 180 W. That's 175'000 kWh. If you assume that dedicated hardware ASICs are 100x more power efficient than the card I claimed, that has at least a similar order of magnitude. To do it in an hour would take a million graphics cards, and ~200 MW.