Posts by Elongated Muskrat 2812 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Nov 2022
I could say you are just bloodthirsty wanting people to keep dying in this war.
Or, in other words, "If only you just let Putin invade your country, without any resistance, he won't have to murder all of your people to do so. It's entirely your fault."
I mean, that's the very laziest and stupidest sort of agitprop, but entirely the sort of thing that we have come to expect from CJ.
No, he invaded in 2014, with the illegal annexation of Crimea. His "no reason at all" follows the pattern of annexing, or installing puppet governments in anything around him that he can see.
The world should have stepped up to support Ukraine and stop Russia's aggression a decade ago, rather than the cowardly moves of appeasement and kowtowing that trump is making now.
Not being funny here, but spectral lines that correspond to the energy levels of quantum transitions are pretty much the original historical evidence for the existence of quantum phenomena - energy levels are quantised, i.e. have discrete values, so transitions between them can only absorb or release photons corresponding to that energy gap, and cannot take an arbitrary energy, E = hν (and thus colour), so you do indeed have that backwards. "Black-body" thermal emission (like what you get in an old-fashioned filament light-bulb) follows a continuous curve with a peak at a frequency corresponding to temperature.
"Normal" LEDs operate by releasing photons that correspond to a quantum band gap, and are "quantum" in nature as well. They just work in a different way to "quantum dots", being a semiconductor junction instead of a tiny piece of semiconductor tuned to a specific shape and size.
I used to have a first-gen R-Pi running headless as a controller for a bitcoin farm (back in the days where it was done with ASICs on USB sticks that cost a tenner each and drew a few watts) which I'd access through remote desktop, so yeah, that's doable. There's not a lot of point to using a 500 if you're only going to remote onto it though. Just a regular Pi without the keyboard and mouse would do the job just as well.
My FF was taking a minute to load
Really? What are you trying to run it on? A 386?
Admittedly, this is on my work laptop, which has a fairly recent gen i7 in it, but I just closed FF, made sure the processes were dead and reopened it, and it was up-and-running with this tab reloaded in about 3 seconds. I've probably got a few hundred tabs open as well.
I just opened an instance of Chrome (which I have to have installed for compatibility testing), and it took 8 seconds for anything to appear, and that's with no open tabs. I couldn't actually close that, or even move the window, until I agreed to a couple of popups.
So yeah, you're talking bollocks, aren't you?
-faster: at what? Loading a page, rendering, what? I've never noticed those things to be limited by the choice of FF; loading a web page largely depends on the time it takes to download the component parts, and I've never noticed any UI lag in FF
- intuitive: this word is basically meaningless. What is "intuitive" to you is "counterintuitive" to another. intuition isn't a real thing now, is it? It's about as possible to pin down as "common sense".
- less confusing: I've never been confused by a browser. Are you sure you should be using the internet if it confuses you?
- better tab and memory management: Pretty vague here; I think there was a time when most browsers were poor at memory management, FF does it pretty well these days. I have no problem with the way tabs work in FF, is there some magic "killer feature" that Chrome has here that I'm unaware of?
- integration of some tools (translation, etc.): FF has the ability to use plugins. One man's "integration of tools" is another man's "browser bloat", the exact same thing FF was being accused of further up this thread. By the way, FF does actually have a "translate this page" function which you may have missed, but you are free to add any number of third-party plugins that direct you to google's offering instead.
- ...and extensions: Are you claiming that chrome has extensions and Firefox does not? if so, then I'm sorry to say you are simply wrong here.
- less hiccups: It's "fewer" hiccups actually. Pretty impressive stuff though, for a web browser to cure your hiccups, unless you meant to be more specific and actually not just add a meaningless point to your list here. Care to specify what you actually mean by "hiccups"? Nah, thought not.
"Back in the day" Chrome took over because FF was suffering from severe browser bloat by comparison
I've been using FF since before Chrome existed, I must have looked away and missed this "severe browser bloat" you speak of. Maybe that was IE6 you were thinking of?
If a piece of software on your system wants to reboot to complete an update, and that piece of software is not concerned with something low-level such as a device driver or hardware interface, then you, my son, have been infected with malware.
Go and scrub yourself clean now.
I can't recall ever coming across a site that didn't work on Firefox, but which did work on Chrome. Do you have some examples?
Back in the bad old days of IE6 there were some sites I was forced to use for work purposes that would only work under IE (due to a requirement to run third-party plug-ins in the browser). The fact that this is so woefully security-illiterate has thankfully put an end to most of that sort of thing.
I've never found FF to be particularly slow. Once a month or so, I might need to restart it when it appears to hang (I've never worked out why, but closing it and restarting it with all my tabs intact takes about ten seconds). In tend to abuse it a fair amount as well, as I have several hundred old tabs open, due to poor habits.
I find the things that actually make websites slow are all the ads and scripts running which, in my case, more accurately aren't there and aren't running due to the fact that uBlock Origin and NoScript run perfectly fine on Firefox. Not allowing other people's devious shit onto my browser is much more important hygiene than closing old tabs IMHO.
I think the underlying problem here is that pretty much every Home Secretary is an authoritarian. I can't actually recall one that wasn't, the Blair government was certainly hot on ID cards and snooping. I think it's probably a prerequisite for the job, and to be fair, a number of the "problems" they are tasked with solving are political in nature (like making sure the government properly appeases people who hate foreigners, so they can keep their seats).
The wider point is that the Home Sec is just a figurehead for the Home Office; politicians come and go, sometimes pretty rapidly (especially under the shambles that was the last Conservative government), but the civil servants at the top of the Home Office, who are tasked with actually getting things done, remain. Jim Hacker might lose his seat, but Sir Humphrey Appleby is still there. Large scale projects very often survive the lifetime of several parliaments, not least because of the momentum they take on once commenced, and because of the sunk cost fallacy.
Failure to know how to create a working branch would be more than enough for any "principal developers" round these parts to find that word "principal" replaced with "junior". Failure to commit (and push) your work for a month would likely be taken as evidence of no work having actually taken place that month.
I'm not entirely certain why you've put "(sic)" there, since those would appear to be the correct usages of "you're" and "your".
Typically, sic is used with square brackets, to distinguish between parenthesised text in the original, and the quoter's own parentheses, although this may be seen as more of a style choice.
They are getting legal representation from a qualified lawyer, it's just that the qualified lawyer has gone and cited something that should hold as much weight as something overheard in a pub, and then hasn't even bothered to go and verify that citation before presenting it to the court.
It would, on the face of it, appear to be a legitimate use for AI to go and find supporting instances of case law. However, anyone tasked with writing such a system should, at the very least, add a filter in to verify that the cases it comes up with actually exist, and the person using it should certainly go and read at the very least the summary of those cases.
It seems that the lawyer in this case is about as skilful as Lionel Hutz.
Aren't they now owned by The Onion?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c30p1p0j0ddo (BBC, but the same information is available pretty much everywhere)
Be warned, that article has a huge picture of man whose head looks like the contents of a tin of spam. Make sure you're not eating when you open it.
doesn't work in technology, either, unless you're in a position where the thing you are working on is already so broken, that breaking it some will actually fix it.
In my experience, this is not often. It's pretty much universally accepted that Twitter, in its now-broken state, for example, is now worth considerably less than what musk paid for it, and the vastly overpriced Tesla shares are due for a crash, especially if sales continue to plummet.
In a world where pointing out that a hostile far-right takeover of the machinery of government is bad is seen as "extreme left", the Overton window is broken.
Maybe leave the childish hyperbole aside. It really is very tedious.
The extreme left have very little voice in mainstream politics or the media, and I've not seen any ranting Marxist "seize the means of production" speech here.
I can see what the author was trying to do, and I don't totally disagree.
However, even if the analogy as applicable, it was poorly presented; the article switches from a discussion of the microcode flaw in AMD processors (rehashing previous material a bit here), and is just looking like it is getting to a point about security of embedded systems, and wham switches to a discussion of what Musk is up to.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the assessment that what Musk is up to - and it is Musk, not Trump, although it is being done with Trump's tacit approval, Musk is clearly behind the gutting of the US government that is going on apace - and the analogy does hold some water, but it feels more than a little forced.
I think you may have misread my comment; this was exactly the point I was making. The word fascism comes directly from the Latin fasces. In case you hadn't realised, it was the Romans who spoke Latin, hence fascism (in a roundabout way) comes from the Romans, via early 20th-century Italians.
The wider point here, is that the Roman empire itself was fascist. It was a culture that conquered and enslaved "lesser" cultures through force projection. The fact that it was apparently less explicitly racist and bigoted than modern-day fascists doesn't make it much better, holding the Romans up as some sort of paragon, as is implied by "oh it was a Roman salute" misses the point that the Romans were nasty bastards too. It's a bit like saying, "oh I wasn't emulating Hitler, I was emulating Mussollini, or Genghis Khan, or Pol Pot, or Stalin, etc. etc."
Just remember, if they are 6" off your back bumper, you need to be doing a speed where that is a safe stopping distance. Something slightly below a slow walking pace, factoring in reaction times.
The teachers at school used to say, "If you run, you won't get there any quicker". That never made any sense, but if you drive right up my arse, you certainly won't be getting to where you're going any faster.
Tesla have just updated the Y model so I suspect their sales will improve the next six months.
Tesla have also updated their CEO to full-on openly raving Nazi, complete with the classic "Roman" salute* so I'd expect their sales to decline in the next six months. Care to place a bet?
*This one always makes me laugh, like the word fascism doesn't come from the Romans to start with. The lack of awareness of history (and etymology) of those doomed to repeat it is breathtaking.
It's Jeel, one of the resident RWNJs, the comparison is of course relevant, and the same corollary applies to him (and the other one, you know who, no don't say his name, he'll rock up in the comments and start a massive rage-chevron going on about how brilliant Brexit is again, and then the comment you were actually interested in will be knocked onto page 7).
Comments that the build quality is poor doesn't reflect the experience I see on Tesla forums.
The last place I would go to find unbiased, unedited, uncensored information about the reliability of a product is its own manufacturer's website, or forums. This applies to any product, but when the company in question is owned by someone who clearly has only a passing familiarity with the concept of truth, it's even more cut-and-dried.
Exactly how long do you think any comment saying anything slightly negative about an Elonmobile would last on the Tesla forums? Why don't you post something to that effect and find out?
Yet, over at the Tesla forums, the cult members are still talking about their 10 year lead in EV tech.
ORLY?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle
I guess the Elon simps haven't discovered google yet?
It's only a matter of time before "AI" can replicate bum notes, a pissed-up off-tempo drummer, and the sound of a drug-addled vocalist tripping and breaking a rib on his own microphone stand. All you need is the sticky floor and a drunken teenager barging into you and spilling your stale beer in a plastic pint glass, and you've got the whole experience at home.
1) The set of positive integers does not have an order.
2) Zero is not in the set of positive integers (https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/849259/mathbbz-includes-zero-or-not).
3) In this implementation, four is also the first, second, third, fourth, etc. positive integer.
In twos-complement, it doesn't have the sign bit set, so it's not negative, we can eliminate that possibility. That doesn't tell us whether it is positive, though.
Perhaps we should settle on four being the fifth incremental non-negative integer (we are also assuming sort order, the set of non-negative integers is just that, a set, it has no intrinsic order).
"The fix is obvious" sounds an awful lot like "roll my own security", which is the same fallacy as "I can't think of a way to break this, so nobody else can," a special case of the Dunning Kruger effect.
In terms of "breaking" MD5 hashes, from the wikipedia page on MD5:
A collision attack exists that can find collisions within seconds on a computer with a 2.6 GHz Pentium 4 processor (complexity of 224.1). Further, there is also a chosen-prefix collision attack that can produce a collision for two inputs with specified prefixes within seconds, using off-the-shelf computing hardware (complexity 239). The ability to find collisions has been greatly aided by the use of off-the-shelf GPUs. On an NVIDIA GeForce 8400GS graphics processor, 16–18 million hashes per second can be computed. An NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra can calculate more than 200 million hashes per second.
In other words, if this was "secured" by hashing with MD5 (which isn't encryption, but might be used as a checksum), it could be broken by a single modern mid-range laptop in a matter of seconds.
At the very least, I would expect that this would be secured using some form of asymmetric key encryption (hopefully the most up-to-date SHA or equivalent), and then the only ways to have broken it would be for the signing (private) key to have been leaked, or to be otherwise insecure or predictable, or to have used a side-channel attack to circumvent the cryptographic verification entirely, due to a weak implementation (basically telling the chip that the data it was loading into its microcode cache had already been decrypted by itself).
