If you read the article carefully, they are talking about lenses THINNER than a hair. I see several of the posts here thinking the width/radius of the lenses is this small, a reasonable mistake given the way this was written. Having a radius that small would severely reduce their light gathering ability, requiring very bright light or very dim images or very long exposure times.

-

Technologies like OAUTH 2.0 have been around for a long, long time, and their purpose is to provide a verifiable audit-trail for users.

And it works! Although there have been (and will always be) security issues, the reality is that technologies like SAML and OAUTH do provide a very useful level of trust.

Except that, although these technologies do allow for a useful transfer of identity, the agents widely used to provide this identity (the IDP) is never an entity that provides a uniformly useful level of identity.

Here I am: Bill Jones (not my real name) citizen of the UK (not my real country, either) and I have no way to properly assert that to, say, Bank of the West (not my real bank, either) or Northern Airlines. (not my real airline)

If I have to assert my true identity, I have a state-issued driver's license or passport. Why do I have no way to assert either of these identification documents electronically?

Why can't I use my passport ID to assert myself to the bank, or the airline?

Seems to me that it would be HIGHLY USEFUL if I could. And it seems to be self-evident and proper that the agencies that issue drivers licenses or passports could offer electronic identification, even if it's sourced out to a tech company with a good reputation.

In the US, it's now become increasingly common to have a unified electronic ID to interact with agencies: see id.me. This is a start, and I know government agencies work GLACIALLY SLOWLY so maybe by the time my grandkids are having babies this could be a thing.

Eh?

> At some point you have to ask why you're using RAID at all. If it's for always-on, avoiding data loss due to hardware failures, and speed, then RAID 6 isn't really am great solution for avoiding data loss when disks get to these kinds of sizes, the chances of getting more than one disk fail simultaneously is approaching one, and obviously it was never great for speed.

If you're at this point, then using drives at all is probably already off the table. But I think this position is probably ridiculous.

I have many years of experience managing file clusters in scopes ranging from SOHO to serving up to 15,000 people at a time in a single cluster. In a cluster of 24 drives under these constant, enterprise-level loads, I saw maybe 1 drive fail in a year.

I've heard this trope about "failure rate approaching 1" since 500GB drives were new. From my own experience, it wasn't really true then, any more than it's true now.

Yes, HDDs have failure rates to keep in mind, but outside the occasional "bad batch", they are still shockingly reliable. Failure rates per unit haven't changed much, even though with rising capacities, that makes the failure rate per GB rise. It still doesn't matter as much as you think.

You can have a great time if you follow a few rules, in my experience:

1) Engineer your system so that any drive cluster going truly offline is survivable. AKA "DR" or "Disaster Recovery". What happens if your data center gets flooded or burns to the ground? And once you have solid DR plans, TRUMPET THE HECK OUT OF IT and tell all your customers. Let them know that they really are safe! It can be a HUGE selling point.

2) Engineer your system so that likely failures are casually survivable. For me, this was ZFS/RAIDZ2, with 6 or 8 drive vdevs, on "white box" 24 bay SuperMicro servers with redundant power.

3) If 24x7x36* uptime is really critical, have 3 levels of redundancy, so even in a failure condition, you fail to a redundant state. For me engineering at "enterprise" level, we used application-layer logic so there were always at least 2 independent drive clusters containing full copies of all data. We had 3 drive clusters using different filesystem technologies (ZFS, XFS/LVM) and sometimes we chose to take one offline to do filesystem level processing or analysis.

4) Backups: You *do* have backups, and you do adhere to the 3-2-1 rule, right? In our case, we used ZFS replication and merged backups and DR. This combined with automated monitoring ensured that we were ready for emergencies, which did happen and were always managed in a satisfactory way.

If you have important files that live only on your computer - especially if they only reside on one computer, then you're an even bigger fool and deserve what you get.

For the most part, cloud providers do a much better job than individual people do. Putting it on Google's servers is generally safer than keeping it only on your own computer.

Also, have you ever tried to back up a Windows host? It's ridiculously complicated! Sure, there are plenty of "easy" solutions, but does that back up SQL Server? That fancy accounting package you spent $4000 for? Where *does* it keep those files?

I found this out recently when I upgraded a hard drive and reloaded the OS onto the new drive. Why would you think it would be so danged difficult to get Quickbooks client files transfered to a new hard drive?

hahahaha

Is this the same guy that proved time travel was possible by generating a negative energy density gravitational lens using any common coffee maker?

-

The ones with actual users ...

These are the sort of self-generating monopolies I've seen in the past 25 years of the internet.

Effectively, everyone goes there because everyone goes there.

A bit more than herd mentality, but makes any startup something which requires large amounts of energy to succeed and then keep going. Never stop.

Twitter has self-inflicted wounds, thanks Elon, but continues to limp along. I find myself less likely to visit because -- not everyone is there any more.

Not all Venture Capital are angels, some come in and kill the fledgling company and take it's IP, others wring it dry over months or years while skimming money off the top. Never occurs to some investors a company could be the next Alphabet or Meta.

Argentina is not banning emoji, Italy is not requiring all babies to be dressed in pink or blue, and Morocco is not going to require GPS to tax bicycles by the mile.

-

If you don't like my source then perhaps you can provide one that is better.

I just reviewed every result on the first page of Google search for: beef greenhouse climate. EVERY SINGLE ONE explains, in one way or another, that beef has a significant and grossly disproportionate impact on the climate. The Economist, Scientific American, The Guardian, Forbes, World Resource Institute, Vox, BBC, Science(published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science), Sciencedirect, the United Nation's FAO, and countless more. Take your pick. Or you could try
Environmental impact of meat production with over 200 sources cited.

Global warming in general, and the impact of beef in particular, are all way past the point where denialism requires actively avoiding and disregard wall-to-wall sources saying the same thing.

If we are concerned about the global warming impact of eating beef then I'm thinking we did so well with the big emitters of coal, petroleum, natural gas, cement, and metal refining, that we are looking to the teeny tiny impact of beef.

If you are bleeding from multiple wounds, I'm sure you know full well that was not a valid argument AGAINST bandaging the easily fixed bleeding immediately, while experts attempt to get the more severe and difficult bleeding under control.

We have not remotely halted global warming. We have barely begun to slow it down, due to decades of sabotage by denialists. The only way we can possibly solve this problem is a few percent at a time in many different ways and many different places. As all of the top Google search results explain, reducing beef consumption is the quickest and easiest thing we can do to immediately and significantly shift things several percent in the right direction. Several percent translates into years of difference, and a lower peak temperature.

As for the rest of your post, I very carefully checked and double checked. Not one sentence was remotely addressed how much impact beef does or does not have. I'm not sure why, but you spent four paragraphs 100% dedicated to arguing that your signature is false and absurd.

-

Beef is one of the top cause of climate change?

Yes.

I thought I'd look that up and a study from Oklahoma State University says beef production causes 1.9% of the CO2 emissions from human activity.

That's called confirmation bias. You went looking for a specific answer, you ignored all of the reliable sources and all of the evidence contradicting the answer you wanted, and you latched on to the first random thing that kinda-sorta looked like the answer you wanted.

In this case you quote a fragment about CO2, and you utterly disregarded methane. Methane is 25 to 80 times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2, and beef production accounts for approximately one third of all human caused methane in the US.

Beef is indisputably an order of magnitude more environmentally damaging than any other category of food. You could buy anywhere from 10 to 200 pounds of virtually any non-meat food, eat one pound and literally burn all of the rest, and it would have less environmental impact than a pound of beef. Beef is obviously only one of many contributors to global warming, but it is a significant factor.

Global warming is not remotely "solved". Temperatures are rising, we haven't stopped the increase, we haven't even managed to slow the increase. Temperatures are still on a basically straight-line increase. There are various initiatives to eventually try to get things under control, but we're nowhere near achieving that. Temperatures are going to continue to rising for decades to come, because denialists have spent the last decades devoted to sabotage.

-

Nvidia will reduce the number of GPUs it sells to manufacturers of graphics cards and laptops so that those manufacturers can clear out their existing inventory.

In related news, Ford has decided to reduce the number of Edsels it will sell so car dealerships can clear out their existing inventory,
Microsoft has decided to reduce the number of copies of Vista it will sell so Computer makers can can clear out their existing inventory,
CocaCola decided to reduce the number of bottles of NewCoke they sell so supermarkets can clear out their existing inventory,
and Republicans have decided to reduce the number of their voters they send to vote so that... ummm elections can clear out their inventories?

-

I heard a group of Trump supporters were exposed, but the brainscans all came back negative.

-

Simple as that. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed them, but you have to really ignore the plot holes for it.

The story line started by Loki and WandaVision was great, but the follow up, not so much.

My humble opinion.

Florida governor Ron DeSantis declared this story is more fake news from the Democrats and Liberal Media.
"I am not a snail, nor do I have brain worms."

-

Quoting the technical specifications: ...FDO software client is installed on the device.
A Root of Trust key (RoT) is also created inside the device to uniquely identify it. This RoT can take the form of cryptographic keys built into the silicon processor (or associated TPM)...

"TPM" is Trusted Platform Module. The "Root of Trust" is is the master security key locking the cryptography on the device - a key which are are explicitly forbidden to know or control. And of course this is the keys locked in the device must "uniquely identify" the device.

The Trust module is now being embedded inside new CPUs.

If you do not activate the Turst system, and given master control of you computer, you are locked out of the system, and locked out of any website based on the system. The next step is that you must register the unique identiy with a CetrificateAuthority/RendesvousService, and prove that the computer is secure against you. This is called "Trust" - specifically your computer is Trusted not to give you your keys, your computer is Trusted not to permit you to use those keys except as defied by them.

If you are not using an approved Operating system, you are locked out. If you have made any changes to your operating system, you are locked out. If you have not installed mandatory-updates from the operating system provider, you are locked out. Locked out of the system. Locked out of all websites based on the system. Locked out of any and all of your own files which were downloaded under this system. It's a Master DRM which owns your system, Trusted to be secure against the owner.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, Microsoft has made Trust chips (or Trust CPUs) mandatory for Windows 11.

There was outrage when Trusted Computing was announced, but they just quietly kept rolling it forwards. Baking it inside most new CPUs now. Some people tried to dismiss or deny or as hypothetical or paranoid or a conspiracy theory. Here it is, mandatory for Windows 11. And being forced out by Apple, and Google.

By the way, one of the earliest declared purposes for Trusted computing - given in a world cybersecurity forum keynote speech by the U.S. head of cybersecurity - was to force out operating system updates to protect against viruses and worms. Specifically, you would be denied internet access if your computer did not have the latest Opearting system updates. And of course, you would be denied internet access if your computer had an unapproved or unknown operating system. Microsoft built this - it's called Trusted Network Connect. Of course they're not stupid enough to roll that out - not until Trust is already mandatory in all common modern computer and phone hardware.... and inside CPUs... and major operating systems... and of course they wouldn't do that unless major websites were already making Trusted Computing mandatory. Oh wait that's what this story is announcing, making Trusted Computing mandatory in place of website passwords.

-