That's always my next step too
These headlines get harder to decipher all the time.
Maybe drop the all caps, or something? There are at least 5 ways I can read this and none of them make sense to me.
Hopefully these streamers comment what they are doing and why they are doing it.
I doubt anyone would watch a stream of text appearing on a screen with no comment?
For someone as myself, who works on projects for smaller clients a lot, often alone, that would be an interesting thing. There are a lot of little things you can pick up from others, but you wouldn't think of them by yourself. Watching this a bit may lead to some good insights.
And what about your cell phone signal then? Are voice calls still getting through into your faraday-cage-home?
I have seen this used for upscaling image resolution.
The neural net is trained on a certain type of image (comics/manga in the example below). It then uses its knowledge about how such a picture should look, to fill in missing information and remove artifacts during the upscale process. Kind of like the nets in the story will try to see their animals/objects in clouds and static.
The result can be really amazing if used on the right type of image. I got some perfect results increasing the image size 16x from a small (300x200) source.
However feed it with a 'wrong' (for example a photo of a person) type of images and the result looks horrible just running through the filter.
The results also vary a lot in general for each source image, which I guess must be the result of how good it fits the training set.
Example trained on comics/manga:
Mine does it when I put the transmission to neutral and release the clutch (its a manual).
So... about 0.5 seconds?
The 'they' in my post referred to the spammers, not your pharmacy.
I doubt those are the same people.
As mentioned in other comments already, do not assume that the spammers get their information directly from that database, or that the email you entered is even saved together with you medical information (why would it?).
Most likely the pharmacy saves your contact info in their own customer database, which they hopefuly dont share.
They know about your medication (see above).
What they may lack is the matching email address to your name?
So your point is, that because only few people become novelists, we should skip teaching reading and writing in school?
We have tried the public execution thing.
We even put the bodies of the executed on the walls of cities, or next to the roads leading into the city.
Did not seem to have that much of an effect. There was never a shortage of delinquents to execute. It's like they did not expect to be caught or something.
Are you trying to say that if the death penality would have been an option, then these crimes would not have happened?
Because that would be the only argument of any importance given the whole reason we have a punishing justice system at all is to prevent crime. Not to exact revenge.
I really doubt these people willingly accepted 20+ years in prison, but would have reconsidered in fear of a death penality.
The punishment which acts as the best deterrant while still being reasonable is the most appropriate one. Not the one that 'feels' most appropriate.
As there is apparently (by looking at past data in countries switching from one form to another) little difference in the deterrant effect between long jail time and death penality on hard crime, it makes no sense to apply the latter one, which is riddled with all kinds of problems for society, both economic and ethical.
I agree that it may make sense to make the jail time itself more of a deterrant, but it is hard to get this factor to influence someone BEFORE they end up in jail, ie before they do the crime, which is what we really want.
In end to end encryption, my end point is my computing device, not my provider.
I guess it would be nice if they also encrypted everything within their network (would maybe hide some routing information from listeners?), but that would not be sufficient.
To be fair, the topics they get to speak about are usually very basic, so if they are related to their fields at all, I guess they DO know those things.
For me, this is why I can't really stand watching them:
I have never seen them talk about anything really new, or interesting.
In every TV segment, they start off from zero and never get very far, or into much detail.
I guess as actual scientists they do have their own research projects, or at least interests in more advanced topics. It would be interesting to hear them talk about that once in while. Or in general focus more on the open questions where the current science is done.
The whole cancer discussion aside, infrared sensors are passive.
Warm objects radiate infrared by themselves. You don't shower houses in infrared... that's the sun's job. And I doubt it would help you looking through walls much.