An adventure 'nugget'? Phil Pugliese (17 Jan 2023 18:46 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Evyn MacDude (17 Jan 2023 22:07 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Timothy Collinson (17 Jan 2023 22:12 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Alex Goodwin (17 Jan 2023 22:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Greg Nokes (17 Jan 2023 23:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Ethan McKinney (18 Jan 2023 01:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Greg nokes (18 Jan 2023 01:40 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Alex Goodwin (18 Jan 2023 02:07 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Greg Nokes (18 Jan 2023 03:24 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Rupert Boleyn (18 Jan 2023 07:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Greg Nokes (18 Jan 2023 17:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Evyn MacDude (21 Jan 2023 01:49 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Alex Goodwin (18 Jan 2023 20:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Timothy Collinson (22 Jan 2023 13:00 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Alex Goodwin (22 Jan 2023 14:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Timothy Collinson (22 Jan 2023 17:39 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Alex Goodwin (22 Jan 2023 18:08 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Timothy Collinson (22 Jan 2023 18:14 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Greg Nokes (22 Jan 2023 20:14 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Phil Pugliese (23 Jan 2023 00:28 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Rupert Boleyn (23 Jan 2023 04:16 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Richard Aiken (13 Apr 2023 02:14 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? David Johnson (22 Jan 2023 15:34 UTC)
Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Timothy Collinson (22 Jan 2023 17:39 UTC)
Re: [EXT]Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Johnson, Bruce E - (bjohnson) (20 Jan 2023 23:47 UTC)
Re: [EXT]Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Tom Rux (21 Jan 2023 01:13 UTC)

Re: [TML] An adventure 'nugget'? Rupert Boleyn 18 Jan 2023 07:53 UTC


On 18Jan2023 1624, Greg Nokes - greg at nokes.name (via tml list) wrote:
> Yeah, it was a little flippant, but here is more fleshed out reasoning:
>
> With systems designed to be operated for weeks, months, or even years with out updates there must be much different underlying architectural considerations. Could you imagine how valuable a remote zero day would be if discovered by an aggressor state? Could you imagine a starship’s computer blue screening just as it jumped? Oof.
>
> Quite honestly, IMHO that’s what lead to Virus - a fully AI, self modifying (program? Being? Something else?) crushed the Imperium. It had to be a dooozy to overcome the design and safely protocols, and IMHO may not even be physically possible.
>
> I would expect systems to operate in far different modes than we are accustomed to. Given that the smartest folks in the Terran, 2I and 3I have had a long time to think about this, I cannot really imagine what those safeguards would look like. Given what we know now, I would expect things like
>
> * Air gaps between sensor, commo, and control systems
That and having biologicals in the circuit are measures adopted in the
New Era. Imperial era ships had throughly networked or fully integrated
systems. Ooops...

The way I see it, by using the Cybeline chips as a basis, Lucan's
researchers got themselves a full AI (normally TL17) two full tech
levels early, and then trained it in hacking using cutting edge TL15
military hacking tech. As even a lot of the 3I's military was TL14
before the 'Rebellion', the X-boat net was TL13, and most of the rest
wasn't even that, Virus unsurprisingly was able to get in, especially as
it had an easy entry via the IFF systems, and the more generations down
the track a given Virus was, the better it got.

Good enough for gaming purposes, I reckon.

I also have trouble believing that it could've wrought the devastation
that it canonically did. However, the Third Imperium was experiencing a
lot of other stressors as well at the time, and as with many of the mass
extinctions on Earth, the cumulative and synergistic effects could've
done it (though this doesn't really explain the Aslan, etc.).

Again, good enough for gaming purposes.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>