Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | DuckConference's comments login

Is this an actual leak or another case of an export-controlled document that's already circulating around the internet getting posted on their forums? Most of the war thunder "classified leaks" have just been that.

There's a huge amount of info available about the CAPTOR radar, its E-CAPTOR successor, and the common European radar successor. There are Wikipedia articles, promotional videos, marketing materials, and so forth.

This video[1] gives enough info that a game dev could make up a basic simulator for a game. But that's just the basic mode. The thing has an large number of modes. Apparently it mostly manages them by itself, which is the clever part. It can act as a search radar, a targeting radar, a jammer, an RF weapon, a ground target mode, and even a bistatic mode, where one plane sends and another receives, so the attacker can get in close while not emitting.

Now that's a really hard user interface problem.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpUhIwGjI7U


> Now that's a really hard user interface problem

I'm not sure whether or not you meant this, but it would be a hard (/interesting) user interface problem in the planes themselves, never mind the game. Especially the bistatic mode.


>> and even a bistatic mode, where one plane sends and another receives, so the attacker can get in close while not emitting.

That is one concept. The tactics of bistatic radar are far more complex, with many possible modes for many different situations and advantages.


And in order to prove a point, one of you will post the link to the full schematics and manuals. This is exactly what the article describes.

I was definitely overweight (by waist and BF%) at 5'11" and 180lbs, and going by the stats I've seen that seems more common than your case of BMI overestimating BF%.

We sourced a basic GPS module for a student project in the late 2000s, it had an antenna the size of a charcoal briquette, drew a bunch of power, wasn't all that cheap, and took a while to lock on to satellites. I can only imagine how crappy and expensive an accelerometer would have been at that time.

The smartphone revolution was a gamechanger for the price and availability of GPS receivers as well as accelerometer/gyro systems.


In theory* having to type it is supposed to be a rare edge case.


Person stops doing thing for 2 years, when returning to thing again now finds it very difficult, a while after returning to thing (plus adding in a hobby of pulling on themselves as instructed by youtube) is ok again.


PS5 controller replaced rumble with fancy haptics and force feedback on the triggers


The force feedback in the triggers was indeed new, but the "haptics" (I think it's basically a low frequency loudspeaker) were already present in the Switch controllers, and before that in iPhones under the name "Taptic engine". Unfortunately the Xbox controller still lacks these "haptics", as well as gyroscope and accelerometer, any force feedback etc.


I thought about that, but at its core the PS5 triggers are just another form of feedback akin to the rumble, and didn't really introduce new types of gameplay.

Fancy haptics were introduced by the Switch.


While the switch had higher resolution haptics, the PS5 is another advance past that. They do not feel the same.


I'm not saying they feel exactly the same, but pointing out the fact that no new gameplay experiences are unlocked by said advancement. This is evidenced by the fact that games are ported between the PS5 and Xbox 1X with little to no gameplay changes between the two, the feel of triggers and rumble aside.

Before haptics became standard, game designers could not base any significant gameplay experiences on the presence of haptics. Early games like Ocarina of Time had neat optional side quests enabled by haptics, but in no way required because they couldn't rely on all customers buying an optional accessory.

The presence of the Switch's HD Rumble (And novel controllers in general) enabled new types of play on games like 1-2-Switch, and Nintendo's Labo series that use the rumble to control cardboard toys' movement.

The same cannot be said for the PS5's more refined rumble or triggers.


Part of the problem is that since they’re only available on the PS5 only exclusive games tend to get real work put into it, if at all.

I do like the way they feel and I think they add to immersion. But honestly I’m not sure you can really enable new kinds of play with any kind of rumble past a basic hot/cold system of how strong it’s running.

While the switch is capable of something more is it really used anywhere besides those two games? A big part of the problem is I’m not sure you can feel it very well unless the joycons are detached. If you keep them attached to the system or use a different controller than you seem to lose the benefit.


>Part of the problem is that since they’re only available on the PS5 only exclusive games tend to get real work put into it, if at all.

This is what GP was arguing about regarding lazy ports on current hardware.

>While the switch is capable of something more is it really used anywhere besides those two games?

The success of the feature is kind of orthogonal to its inclusion into the console though, since console makers won't know how successful it'll be until it's developed and released. I agree with you that it didn't really take off, but that's true of other things like button pressure sensitivity, or Kinnect-style controls.

I'd also argue that HD rumble is but a small portion of a much larger and game-impacting package that is the Switch controller, while the PS5 controller is a refinement of the same controller they've had for decades now.

Playstation and Xbox have seemingly abandoned novel hardware that enables new gameplay experiences.


You can add security keys as a 2FA method and it will disable use of the trusted phone number for authentication


What happens if you have the RecoveryKey set, like the actual generated Recovery code? If that's set, can you always reestablish access?


The other side of this is the many complaints in HN threads about restrictions on what extensions can do and which ones are allowed. I can't say whether chrome's extension library strikes the right balance, but I think it's a difficult tradeoff.


Instead of just outright limiting extensions you could give users the choice. Give us an option to make it impossible for extensions to send out data for example.


Exactly. What Chrome and Firefox should do, is bundle their own analytics program into the extensions program, make these analytics available via AMO or Chrome Web Store (already has a very basic version), and remove the ability for extensions to perform outgoing network requests unless the user explicitly whitelists the extension. Even then, show big scary warnings about extensions given this permission being able to steal your bank passwords, just to keep the less tech-savvy informed.


One thing extensions commonly do is modify the page. If an extension can modify the page, it can insert an <img> which will cause a network request to happen. How do you plan to prevent this? Prevent extensions from modifying the page?


Same suggestion applies. Show users the warning that extensions can modify your page and have users explicitly approve of it.


And they already do that. The problem is, almost every extension has a legitimate need to read and/or modify the page, so people click through this permission warning like Vista's UAC.


I do notice that almost all of the extensions I use have no need to make http requests nor modify the dom (e.g. to add tracking <img> or css url()). I wonder what other methods there are to exfiltrate info beyond that.


What extensions are those?


Maybe also introduce a paranoia button where every request can be vetted in its context, so every request you get to see the code and a button permit or not.


The main issue people complain about is that it takes months for Google to review extensions and they shut down extensions randomly without giving reasons, not the amount of permissions.


A solution would be that browser maker always check what are the most popular extensions and implement those feature in browsers so you get security and performance. It is more work for the browser maker but you do it for the popular extension (if you care about your users and not about yourself - this applies to GNOME too)


Remember pdfjs? Performance will be the same.


Pdf.js is great for majority of users IMO. A good example is readability, is part of many browsers now by default so you don't have to hunt for a good and trustworthy extension.


While there’s nothing really new here, maybe this will get average people to start caring about this stuff.


I highly doubt this...


Or perhaps Congress.


Context?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: