My votes for relatively modern stuff:
Ed Witten: Unification of various forms of string theory.
Category theory and the work building programming langauges on top of that.
If the whole thing pans out: Langlands Program (unifying most of mathematics).
Wofram Language and the math capability is pretty amazing for such a small team.
Anything that CERN touches, from the web to various quantum theories.
Genetic mapping and science.
The Lambda CDM model, and all the work that goes into constraining their predictions with limited data is pretty amazing.
Some of the things cryptanalysts and hackers do is pretty remarkable. Side channel attacks like Row hammer attacks (not strictly crypto), EM analysis, etc..., and things like hash collisions and Differential cryptanalysis.
Modern materials science is chock full of amazing intellectual achievements.
"Winning ways for your mathematical plays" as a book on game theory is a remarkable achievement by itself.
I made a similar tool that in my opinion is more useful for finding characters, either by text search, drawing, or selecting a similar character. I feel that the tool the OP posted seems cool for short periods of entertainment, but isn't very useful for utility. Link to the website here: https://unicode-atlas.vercel.app
I didn't read their whole comment, but I worked in the Internal Research department of a medical school. I did their statistical studies and built software for analysis pipelines.
Doctors, at least 15 years ago, were definitely bad at statistics.
They were not required to take a statistics course at all. Most programs would require Algebra and Calculus as part of their science reqs.
Some would maybe take one basic research course, and they would then become obsessed with p values of 0.05.
They did not have a basic understanding of how to interpret research unless they were an auto didactic and went out of their way to improve. It's something my director (a doctor and software engineer), and the Dean complained about relentlessly.
I’ve not only visited many doctors personally I was also part of a team working on a medical diagnostic instrument, the result of the instrument was a probability distribution function and it was impossible to explain this to the doctors who really would only accept a small number discrete classifications, which in effect throws out about half of the data we had worked so hard to collect.
You reminded me about another idiosyncrasy:
Doctors are addicted to double blind randomized control trials.
Which yes, those are powerful. But good evidence can come from many other study designs. Especially when mechanisms and first principles are being studied.
I've had reasonable luck with microsoft's windows media center remote receivers and lirc. Although they don't all work the same. The first one I got was easier to use than later ones...
And frustation with atsc 3 and the media landscape led to me abandoning my htpcs.
“Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better.”
- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Great resource. I'm building a basic version of this in my basement DIY style. Not going to get to industrial levels, but I think some fun experiments are to be had.
That article is making a narrower claim than you're implying. It argues that NAT is not a security mechanism by design and that some forms of NAT provide no protection, which is true.
It also explicitly acknowledges that NAT has side effects that resemble security mechanisms.
In typical deployments, those side effects mean internal hosts are not directly addressable from the public internet unless a mapping already exists. That reduces externally reachable attack surface.
So, the disagreement here is mostly semantic. NAT is not a security control in the design sense, but it does have security-relevant effects in practice.
I personally do consider NAT as part of a security strategy. It's sometimes nice to have.
Both of those articles are actually wrong. They say "if an unknown packet arrives from the outside interface, it’s dropped" and "While it is true that stateful ingress IPv4 NAT will reject externally initiated TCP traffic" respectively, but this is in fact not true for NAT, which you can see for yourself just by testing it. (It's true for a firewall, but not for NAT.)
The biggest security-relevant effects of NAT are negative. It makes people think they're protected when they aren't, and when used with port forwarding rules it reduces the search space needed to find accessible servers.
I agree it can be a useful tool in your toolbox sometimes, but a security tool it is not.
reply