Mythbusters did an experiment to disprove this. I'd say they are about as credible as these researchers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Increasing UDP throughput simply by inlining a function is a big deal!

I have been to all of the QC Snapdragon briefs, know the engineers personally, and have written about the shitshow on SemiAccurate.com extensively, basically I know what is going on. QC doesn't understand what they are doing and why, and there is ZERO internal impetus to change from the people on top. They do nearly nothing on software enablement because, "That is Microsoft's job". Drivers are intentionally locked down and encrypted to block Linux, and x86 compatibility is BETTER in hardware than the Mac Mx line (Same people who did the M1 and M2 did the X1 and X2, and they all just bailed on QC) but the software is.... oh look outside, there is a sky.

TLDR: No chance in hell there will be a fix.

                    -Charlie

And nothing of value was lost.

Sadly while your logic sounds spot on, the reality is, that TV still does ACR (basically hashing each screen sometimes multiple times a second) and builds one hell of an accurate profile of everything you watch. Even if the source is HDMI. And it's still sold.

Food for thought, that HDMI cable to your dedicated device, it likely supports networking, so the TV has a path to the internet even if you don't connect an ethernet cable directly to it, or add in your wifi creds.

I've heard of traffic 'accidents' where a diabetic went hypoglycemic, passed out, and drove into other cars, pedestrians, etc. For some reason the news always reports it as a 'medical event', but the point is, people are killed by diabetics due to their diabetes way too often. It is an apt analogy. An idiot decides to drink and drive an puts people at risk. An idiot with diabetes fails to control their blood sugar and decides to drive, putting people at risk.

Yeah, it's easy to add more code to fix stuff that should be deleted. Just have the launcher code call your new code which bypasses all the old code. The old code can happily remain, it'll just never be called. No special skills required. If you look at the windows codebase, you'll see this technique everywhere.

And a douche bag of a president who drops bombs next to schools and kills 135 kids . Should resign on the spot for that.

Look up "human shields", the practice of siting military targets among (or in or under) large collections of non-military civilians, in order to deter strikes against them or produce propaganda claims of atrocities when they're attacked anyhow.

In such situations the fault for the "collateral damage" is assigned to the side that set up the arrangement, not the side that hit it.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the US has been trying very hard to use precision munitions and extreme military intelligence to take out military targets with as little harm to the innocents they're embedded among as possible, with impressive success. Compare the amount of collateral damage in this war to any of those conducted in the 20th century.

He's doing the bare minimum sniff test of verifying that *you* are the guy whose name is on the bookings and not someone sneaking in on someone else's name who can't even pronounce the name on your fake id.

At least in the case of people claiming to be returning citizens I've been told that they're comparing your accent to your claimed residence (or residence history).

Different words are acquired at different ages, and many are pronounced with regional variations. An expert can talk to you for a few minutes and come up with a pretty good age-map of where you lived as you grew up. An agent with a modicum of training can detect a mismatch between how you pronounce certain words and your claimed residence and pass you through quickly or keep you around and drill more deeply. (If you now live in an area with a regional accent wildly different from where you grew up it can help to answer a where-do-you-reside question with "Footown, but I grew up in Barstate".)

I presume they are doing something similar, though no doubt with lower resolution, on the world-wide level for visitors from other countries.

And she's probably still a threat to national security!

Agreed, I had a 486DX2-50 from Dell. At best, I got it to boot into windows 3.1 on Dos 6.22 in about 25 seconds. That was with the HDD in DMA mode, and a heavily optimized config.sys and autoexec.bat. Unfortunately just the POST ate up 10 seconds.

The OP's claim of 3 seconds is ludicrous. Maybe on a modern VM emulating a 486?

What's really scary is that we've reached a point where I can't tell if this is a legit suggestion or sarcasm... and that says a lot.

You had me until you said you live in the UK. As a Canadian, it pains me to say, but the UK is even stricter than Canada on this surveillance and violence prevention crap. Even if Ebay didn't demand you prove your age for wanting a pair of scissors with less than an inch long blade, the UK Post would likely demand ID before delivering the 'dangerous goods', to track the movement of 'nefarious instruments'... lol

In case my sarcasm wasn't evident. I feel your plight, and share in it. This nonsense needs to end.

Oh dear... you seem to think that the human eye takes a picture like a camera. That's not at all how our eyes work. The number of rods and cones is not really that important, density of them matters more, but the focal length between the front and back of our eyes matter the most.

You see (pun intended) the human eye and brain work by scanning and filling in the blanks. Your eye is scanning (micromovements) constantly. Your brain is storing what it saw in an extremely narrow field of view and building up a mental image that makes you think you're seeing everything around you in one shot and in high detail. Nobody is. We're all seeing a very tiny sliver of high resolution dead center of our vision (well minus the tiny blind spot where the optic nerve leaves the back of the retina), and the rest is composited together from memory, and some of it is hallucinated (or inferred by experience and the brain being lazy).

So you are correct that it is unlikely the person can actually see such detail at that distance, but in theory, if his eyes are able to focus light just right at that distance onto the important part of his retina, he theoretically could make out the pixels, even if the pixel density is higher than the density of the cones and rods on the back of his eye.

My guess is he really believes he sees the individual pixels at that distance, but what he's seeing is artifacts from groups of pixels that his brain perceives. Not too dissimilar to how many people (myself included) can tell the difference between a CRT monitor refreshing at 60Hz, 75Hz, and even 85Hz. We're seeing secondary effects and claiming we see the flicker. Heck, anything below 400Hz for a fluorescent tube light and I absolutely see flicker, yet physiologically I should not. Clearly my eyes don't refresh at 400Hz. Just like the OP's eyes do not have the ability to resolve the pixels at that distance, but his brain is treating secondary artifacts as pixels, when they are very likely groups of pixels that appear to show banding in his vision (a common issue with human vision, and the reason why sub-pixel blending is used on fonts, to avoid that exact phenomenon).

So yeah, the OP is confusing his perception with what he is physically seeing. Lots of us think we see details we don't actually see. Our brains are fantastic at guessing and seeing patterns, then convincing us that we are indeed seeing them. That's the foundation of most optical illusions. And if he really did have a genetic abnormality where he could resolve the pixels at distance as he claims, then he'd be blind when looking at anything at any other distance as he'd be unable to focus the lens of his eye due to thickness.

I wish to subscribe to your fortune cookie newsletter.