Anyone noticed a lack of work units today ?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: leillo1975Only a Question, is necessary to open some port on the router?

No, it uses both port 80 and 8080, 8080 is if you are behind a proxy

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: Liam DaweOur team now actually shows up. We're ranked currently 12,516 of 238,810.

I left my GPU running last night, only to wake up this morning to a jump from 600 points (two jobs on my CPU) to 137k!!

The team is now visible with detailed stats too: https://stats.foldingathome.org/team/245680 [External Link]

My GPU runs at 82 degrees when it's folding - roughly the equivalent of playing a AAA game. But the loads it takes are worth much, much more than the loads my CPU is assigned. Very impressive!

Just to note - we're at 3799 of 241330!

Am happy as i've passed liam :P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Joined myself today, Only problem I have seems to be lack of work units .

Cpu has had the one whilst GPU is still crunching.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: HoriI wonder how much of it is due to people staying at home to avoid the coronavirus

Btw guys, seriously, do stay at home.

:dizzy:

Not feasible for 99% of the working population.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Nice!

Just need some nice soul to do a GUI app that also sets it system wide ,

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LeonardK

Quoting: pete910

Quoting: LeonardKoh, there we go, I thought I was fast enough debunking the tinfoil but apparently I wasn't. The paper was done by the same researchers who already "targeted" Intel multiple times and the researchers never claimed AMD CPUs being exploitable either. However, they're research found that the L1d predictor is vulnerable, which can prove useful in future research.

I agree but reverse engineering a component then simulating it without knowing that it's correct then missing rest of the CPU/firmware safe guards is misleading.

It's a totally valid approach. We have to remember that this is a *research paper*, not someone claiming "they hacked AMD". They pick one component and anlyse it, they don't "misleadingly leave out". In the paper itself, they also explicitly state the model and attack vector. But one can also guess at how irrelevant the paper is to *systems administrators* by it not being pushed by the researches, there's no big website as with meltdown/spectre/lvi etc.

I understand it's a valid approach, Their method of analysis is fine on a academic level, In practice it's very flawed due to obvious reasons.

Trouble is it has been mislead as an actual vulnerability/possible exploit when it's not by various media outlets/headlines.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LeonardK

Quoting: pete910It's PR stunt paid by Intel again.

They isolated the L1 design and simulated an attack ignoring the rest of the CPUs design/safe guards.

So whilst possible when simulated but so is me drilling through a 6" thick steel plate with my finger under simulation given the right coding :wink:

oh, there we go, I thought I was fast enough debunking the tinfoil but apparently I wasn't. The paper was done by the same researchers who already "targeted" Intel multiple times and the researchers never claimed AMD CPUs being exploitable either. However, they're research found that the L1d predictor is vulnerable, which can prove useful in future research.

I agree but reverse engineering a component then simulating it without knowing that it's correct then missing rest of the CPU/firmware safe guards is misleading.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's PR stunt paid by Intel again.

They isolated the L1 design and simulated an attack ignoring the rest of the CPUs design/safe guards.

So whilst possible when simulated but so is me drilling through a 6" thick steel plate with my finger under simulation given the right coding :wink:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JJNova

Quoting: pete910Regardless of where you want to buy games from is no reason to wish/say such things about any firm/devs ect. You've basically ssaid you want people to lose there jobs just so you can buy "x" game on another store.

No I didn't. I said I would prefer them on a store with better consumer friendly policies, and the original post could have motivated that change.

Even if I had said that, there is nothing bad about it. There are plenty of places I don't shop, or media I don't partake in, or events I avoid for one reason or another. I'm not supporting everything just so people don't lose their jobs.

Stop trying to back-pedal, The original post was plain vindictive.

Man up and admit it and we'll leave it at that.

I hope prospective devs/publishers reading this particular thread don't think this is how linux gamers/users as a whole think.

View this comment - View article - View full comments