I see a different failure.

> the researchers found that the use of these UV emitting devices for just one 20-minute session led to between 20 and 30 percent cell death, while three consecutive 20-minute exposures caused between 65 and 70 percent of the exposed cells to die.

Their lab methodology says 20%-30% of your cells will die in one session, 70% if you decide to get a different color.

Don't you think customers would have noticed that their hands are dead?

Killing 20%-70% of your skin in a few minutes would be very obvious.

When your lab result is so blatantly opposite real world experience, your research is - wrong.

Veritasium explains why most published research is wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

If you want a 15-minute news cycle (with things that may or may not be true, in varying degrees), read Fox News or CNN.

If you want a 24-48 hour news cycle with things that are mostly true but dumbed down, read ABC News.

If you want sometimes intelligent analysis of the nerdy news of the week (and BS headlines), read Slashdot.

Slashdot isn't about whatever happened in the 20 minutes. It's about discussing the news of the week, or recent weeks, with fellow nerds.

Yep, since the topic is non-competes, I totally thought your reply was about that, without reading carefully what you said. Total brain fart there, and copying the wording you used without stopping to think what it means.

And of course I had to go and be a rude about it. Being rude and totally wrong at the same time isn't a good look, is it.

I should be rude less, partly because I'll sometimes be wrong and I don't like being both wrong and rude at the same time.

I had a brain fart while reading your post and read "all NDAs" as "all non-competes".

It fails to recognize that some non-competes are perfectly reasonable.

As you said, it doesn't get rid off all NDAs.

What part of of "This Part 910 shall supersede any statute, regulation, order, or interpretation" do you have a hard time understanding?

Or you you again just making up random shit, straight from your ass, without bothering to even read it, after I told you I read it and so that problem?

> this doesn't get rid of the entire concept of NDAs, just overly broad ones

As I pointed out, I read the rule, looking for exactly what it does. As I said, it gets rid of all NDAs, instead of being in any way intelligent.

Why do you completely make shit up when you could click the link and read the thing? Then you'd actually know what you're talking about, rather than posting complete and utter bullshit?

I read the proposed rule.

It completely fails to recognize any of the many exceptions or restrictions that absolutely make sense. For example as written, three months after Coca Cola hires a new CFO, Pepsi can make her a slightly better offer - and thereby bring in very valuable info about Coke's operations and plans. While inflicting a little damage on Coke as a bonus.

It absolutely makes sense to avoid having DIRECT competitors immediately poach top executives, certain researchers, etc.

A rule written in good faith, designed to actually work well, would bar most non-competes, while including wording around "highly compensated employees" (a term from other labor law) and time limits, like someone in R&D can't go directly to the closest competitor only 60 days after starting (and seeing all the secrets).

The rule-making folks at the FTC know how to write a rule. I don't think this is a good-faith attempt at writing a workable rule. It looks more like just a publicity stunt by Lina Khan.

> Most toy airplanes fly low and behind obstructions like buildings, trees, power lines, fences, and terrain. In fact, when they fly that way, they're most likely to be doing something "unsafe"

It almost sounds like you're saying that most people flying around their backyard are doing something unsafe. Perhaps you could clarify?

The statute gives FAA authority over the airspace that can be used for interstate transport of commercial cargo (under the interstate commerce clause). It bugs me a bit that the FAA has decided to ignore that and unlawfully control what you do behind your fence.

If I were a Chinese corporate officer, accountable to the CCP, I would want to make money and I'd darn sure not have any interest in protecting Americans. If I could brag about causing problems for Americans while taking their money, that would be a bonus.

Same as we see Russia buying ads promoting extremist views on both sides of political issues in the US - to increase disharmony, because divided we fall. They want to both take the US down a notch AND they'll gladly take our money while they do so.

> Do they use some kind of slo-mo action?

Yes, a very, very, very slow-motion system.
A system called "the US federal government".

The US government is *supposed* to be fair, transparent, open, democratic - no fast or efficient.

When things go wrong, because the govt is made of humans, then it's not fair, transparent, or open, but it still aint fast. Not supposed to be fast.

> could it be used as an encrypted chat

Yes, any communication tool and any cloud service CAN be used to pass encrypted messages. After all:

The cat ate the grapes. What does that mean? Nobody knows without the key.

And besides, 8911 54dd 25d25 eb7a 0fae e16.

It's trivially easy to send encrypted messages using any platform or protocol that posts / sends whatever you type / paste.

> Will password managers like Lastpass or or self hosted ones like Bit Warden or Vault be the next place for criminals to communicate

No. They are particularly ill-suited for that purpose.
They would be a poor choice both in terms of practical use and also security. They are a poor choice simply because it's not a messaging platform. There's no contact list or anything. There's no notification that you received a new "message", etc.

They are also particularly poor for security, because to either read or update the password (message), you need to have THE master key/password. You'd have to share the master password with whomever you're communicating with! That makes the entire idea mostly useless. That's like sending an email with a password protected zip file and saying "unzip this file using the password "Kaboom". Well that's pointless, because anyone who sees the message has the password.

Encrypted messaging apps such as Whatsapp and Signal don't have *A* key for the conversation, used to encrypt and decrypt it. They have a total of FOUR keys. When I send you a Whatsapp message, I use your public key. The essential thing to understand here is that the public key, which I use to encrypt the message, can NOT be used to decrypt it! That means I can send you an encrypted message, without including the decryption key in the message.

You send me your public encryption key, and keep your decryption key private. That's how Whatsapp provides secure messaging, while LastPass doesn't. Lastpass and other password managers are secure only for sending messages to yourself, where you don't have to communicate the master password to someone else.

This seems to be especially true on radio. The DJ / host says they personally use and love each product.

On TV, the fact they the celeb appears in the commercial might *imply* that they like the product, but they don't normally/always say that.

In a crowd that size, in Washington DC, if the FBI did NOT have some confidential informants there they completely failed at their job.

With 100,000 people there, and every extremist group in the country represented, the FBI damn well SHOULD have had some folks walking around, milling with the crowds.

Your predictions show that, as you said, you know nothing about the system.

The system allows Wells Fargo to pay Citigroup whatever they owe to Citigroup without waiting overnight. In the current system, they settle up every night. The new system is testing faster settlement between large banks.

How is this a privacy disaster? How would it cost you? How would it destabilize the economy? Answers:

It isn't.
It wouldn't.
It wouldn't.

Suppose person A writes a check to person B.
If they are both customers of Citibank, then Citibank can just transfer the money from one customer's account to the other. Quick and easy.

On the other hand, if the person writing the check uses bank A, and the person depositing the check uses bank B, then money has to be sent from bank A to bank B.

Unless of course a different customer of bank B writes a check to a customer of bank A, in which case they cancel out. The money that actually needs to be sent between the banks is whatever is the DIFFERENCE between what customers of A pay to customers of B versus the other way around.

That's what this system will be used for. For one bank to send money to the other, because their customers sent more payments to the customers of the other bank.

It's a COMPLETELY different thing. It's more like "I enjoy painting more than photography". The camera will automatically make a picture, as opposed to you making a picture. That's the difference between a manual brush and an automatic one.

Some would say, what's the fun in watching a machine make a picture? Or listening to an mp3 rather than playing your own music? Or sitting there while the machine drives?

The fact that you're unable to understand that other people enjoy different things than you do shows just how very small your mind is. You might try being a tad less closed-minded and self-centered, because when you can see as far as your own nose, you miss 99.99% of what the world has to offer.