One has to put this in perspective. On the rdos "Aspie Quiz" (which, at least of the previous version, followed the official diagnostic procedures for autism extremely closely and accurately measured "autism levels"), I score 178 out of 200, well into the upper range for autism. I've been officially dxed with autism and complex ADHD. Amongst a bunch of other stuff.

I hyperfixate (though generally not on Slashot, interestingly, although again there are exceptions), and my language will, at times, get blunt. And, yes, have been known to do all the other things you list. Although I do make some sort of effort to keep it at levels others can tolerate. Sometimes, I even actually succeed in this.

As a result, I think I can reasonably and fairly say that autistic people generally don't fit rsilvergun's profile. In fact, I suspect that the number of people on the ASD spectrum on Slashdot is well above the background level and quite plausibly much higher than in even the sciences. I could be wrong, there, of course. That does occasionally happen(!). So "autistic" (even "severely autistic") doesn't reflect actual behaviour in quite the way that the "standard image" portrays.

And that's one of the biggest alarm bells you can ever have with this condition. I've been in autistic groups where half the participants can't ever leave specialised care, and even those never ticked all of the boxes. If you see someone who DOES tick all the boxes, it is of course possible that they are autistic, but the underlying neurology of the condition (which is highly complex) strongly suggests that they can't have all those behaviours because of autism. Almost certainly, at least some behaviours are a fiction, even if it's not easy to figure out which ones are real and which ones aren't. And if some of them aren't genuine, you can't trust that any of them are.

Remote diagnosis is a dangerous game, but if someone exhibits two symtoms that appear in a description but cannot actually coexist, that's the time to stop trusting what they say.

If you want to stream and store every single episode of Thunderbirds in 1K, you're welcome to try. Although International Rescue might stop you.

(It's a pity that the 4K upgrades they did on two episodes weren't popular in the cinemas - the quality was impressive and actually showed just how much effort was put into making high quality models even for a cheap show in the 1960s. You couldn't upscale the early Doctor Who stories to 4K without a LOT of cleanup, the props weren't nearly to the same standard.)

Streaming is inherently quality-capped - there's only so much pipe coming out of the streaming service, it's gotta handle an Internet clogged with cats and porn (and, trust me, you don't want the cats in the Interwebs batbatbatting your film to knock it over the edge), and it's got to be a simple enough format that low-end low-power laptop/phone CPUs can handle it.

So it's partly watch-forever for DVDs, but also a case of what to do if you really really want high quality.

Agreed, format wars were stupid, but DVD has limited capacity and there's not much you can do about that. DVD-9 is fine, but heavy on the CPU, and (whilst backwards compatible) is nonetheless another standard.

I dunno. You might watch low-quality stuff - I dunno - but there's plenty of high-quality productions where bluray (even if it's not 4K) offer a definite advantage over streaming. Audio is also much higher quality streamed. Heavy compression may be ok if you're not used to anything decent or not watching anything decent, but high quality sound is always going to win for me.

That nicely sums it up.

Anybody can call themselves "security researcher". No qualification requirements at all. Of course, for some people that claim is more ridiculous than for others. I would, for example, expect basic risk management skills for that designation to make sense. These are obviously missing in the case of this person.

Well, while it is funny, it just shows that "security researcher" and "blithering idiot" are not mutually exclusive. No idea why she posted this though. Seems like self-incrimination to me.

Indeed. But most people cannot do that, including a lot of people that should really know better.

Also note that anybody can call themselves a "security researcher", there are no qualification requirements whatsoever.

Because "AI".

I call that "hopeful engineering". It is the state of incompetence where you hope and expect things done under other conditions to nicely transfer over, against all rationality.

Yep. Complete amateur-level and pretty dumb amateur level at that. A smart amateur would have been more careful.

Indeed. But anybody can call themselves "security researcher", there are really no limits. One of the problems with IT and applied CS: Too many made-up job titles designed to signal competence, even when that is a total lie.

You fell for a hallucination. Batteries can be charged and discharged several times per year! I guess "copilot" does not know that or you gave it a really stupid question.

Oh, and wind also blows in the night. Occasionally. And, here is the kicker: You can plan for nighttime! Shocking, I know.

That happens as well, but less and less often. And these installations are designed to deal with that with minimal damage. Since these batteries are stationary, other tech is also in use.