38 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
38 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# Meeting with Ginger and Benjamin about Summer Internship
|
|
|
|
Also not directly an interview, but rather a check-in and
|
|
conversation. Good conversation about the thrust they would
|
|
be interested in me working on. CIE-group. They want to do a
|
|
push about how we define resilliency, especially when it
|
|
comes to cyber control systems. Probabilism and defense in
|
|
depth is not enough, or perhaps not the right approach.
|
|
|
|
Ginger also brought up good points. We want to be able to
|
|
have evidence for autonomous control systems for things like
|
|
liability courts. If something goes wrong, we want to be
|
|
able to say why the control system made the right choice,
|
|
based on formal methods approaches to justify control
|
|
actions. Also talk about *graded* responses and saying
|
|
whether or not we can justify operation of a degraded
|
|
system.
|
|
|
|
16-wk on-site internship. Relocation help included. Spoke
|
|
highly of Dan and continued collaboration is an option.
|
|
|
|
Two main deliverables:
|
|
- a kind of state of the art on what 'resilience' is and how
|
|
it is determined
|
|
- a thrust or way forward of what new metrics for resilience
|
|
could look like. Sounds like an advanced proposal
|
|
- Conference paper?
|
|
|
|
Team: Ginger, Benjamin, a gentleman named John, other
|
|
individuals.
|
|
|
|
Benjamin has a reachability manifesto he wants to send us.
|
|
Dan as INL-vetted will probably get an email about it.
|
|
|
|
More to come in the next couple of weeks. Need to evaluate
|
|
against Emerson opportunity. This seems to have more
|
|
direction.
|