Sure, but when you see someone holding up a lav mic between their thumb and forefinger, that's not audio engineering; that has to be social signaling, or perhaps uninformed mimicry.
It's uninformed mimicry. Someone very close to me (I won't name names!) bought one and did it the other day for their business and I was absolutely shocked when I saw their draft video. I asked them what they thought the clip was for.
It's a massive trend all over IG and TikTok these days as there's a lot of mobile-friendly consumer gear that brings your Social Media Content up a fairly large way for fairly low cost. Ironically, the mimicry probably spreads because those that know what they're doing partially or fully conceal it which is by definition less likely to be noticed and therefore imitated by first timers/novices.
> That would be like antropic and google crying about china stealing the weights that were originally built by scraping as fuck stolen content :-)
do you really see a relation between the two, or are you just willfully 'buying an advertisement' by trying to shape a metaphor from the social qualms that you wish to rebroadcast to people?
in other words, no -- this isn't at all similar to the companies that steal media in order to train models only to complain about similar theft from other companies targetted towards them -- but I agree with the motivation, fuck em; they're crooks...
but don't weaken metaphors simply to advertise a social injustice. If you want to do that, don't hijack conversations abroad.
I doubt it. But I keep my own encrypted backup anyway (as I did with 1P, too), so realistically only the most recently added/updated passwords are at risk.
First, all your passwords are locked behind the same passcode you use to log-in. You cannot set different password to unlock the passwords. Anyone who saw your iphone passcode or macbook’s password can not only onlock the device but get access to all the passwords as they are behind the same passcode.
Second, what would happen if you were locked out of apple id account? Or don’t have access to apple hardware.
Password manager should really be platform and device agnostic.
That’s why people used stuff like 1password in the first place.
You really don’t want to put all your life into a single account (that’s why you should not use sign with google or what have you).
> A phantom read is one where a transaction runs the same SELECT multiple times, but sees different results the second time around
> Under the SQL standard, the repeatable read level allows phantom reads, though in Postgres they still aren't possible.
This is bad wording which could lead to an impression that a repeatable read may show different values. Values in rows will be the same but new rows may be added to the second result set. New rows is important as no previously read rows can be either changed or deleted — otherwise there will be no repetition for those rows second time around.
All the quotes miss the simplicity of 3 rules of Cosmology or whatever it was called in the trilogy.
—
The essence of the Dark Forest theory:
1. Survival is the primary goal of any civilization.
2. Life expands to fill all available space, but resources are finite. Roughly speaking, like humans cutting down forests to expand cities without caring what happens to the ants living there — if expansion is needed, it’s done.
3. Progress is unstoppable. If one group hasn’t mastered fusion yet, they will say in a thousand years — and then they’ll come for the others because of points 1 and 2.
—
The author builds the novel on the idea that we shouldn’t be sending signals into space, but rather stay quiet and avoid drawing attention. Because in his view, once one civilization detects a signal from another, the safest move is to eliminate it immediately — without taking the risk of finding out whether it’s friendly (for now) or already not.
Another factor that as far I remember was present in the novel was technological acceleration, by the time you detected the first tries of "turning on the lights" of an emerging civilization many light years away, that civilization is not an emerging one anymore, and even more by the time you can get there, and they may eventually be able to do something to harm or destroy your own civilization, so it is not something that should be left unchecked.
And technological acceleration is a constant in that universe, the attackers were just a bit ahead of us in technological advancement, lets say a few hundred years, not the millions or billions of years ahead of the very bad ones.
#2 doesn't seem to consider how much stuff there is out there. Why bother harvesting resources from a gravity-laden planet when you can almost certainly get them from asteroids or other places?
Furthermore, while we may not care about "ants", we do - at least to some degree - care about the impact on wildlife and the environment. Probably not as much as we should, but our concern has only grown over time, so I'm not sure I buy the suggestion that a super-advanced civilization would go the extreme opposite way and not care about the impact it has on "lesser" life forms.
> Why bother harvesting resources from a gravity-laden planet when you can almost certainly get them from asteroids or other places?
Why bother digging up a carbon laden energy source from the depths of a gravity laden planet instead of using solar energy or wind or any other energy source that is less harmful?
Seems really illogical … oh wait, thats just an intelligent life-form.
> Why bother digging up a carbon laden energy source from the depths of a gravity laden planet instead of using solar energy or wind or any other energy source that is less harmful?
Well at least one reason might be that you're currently unable to use those latter forms of energy as well as you can the former.
Anyway, using the way we act as a comparison for how these other civilizations might act doesn't make sense to me - we're nowhere even remotely close to being a threat to other civilizations. By the time a civilization reaches the point where they can travel between stars, I do suspect they'll be using renewables pretty dang heavily
That's why I gave the example of solar: we've been able to utilize solar for a long time yet only now is it become a serious source of energy. Windmills have existed for probably 200 years but have not been taken seriously as a source of energy.
I'm not talking about mining asteroids, I'm talking about other sources of energy that have been known to us but which we don't utilise because of self-interest of oil companies - not money or cost, self interest. Money & cost are regulated by us not money.
So to say these other sources of energy weren't viable from a financial PoV might be correct but it goes against our own self-interest.
> I do suspect they'll be using renewables pretty dang heavily
That's like saying "in any case, the future will be better". As humans have shown, worse comes before better in history. Howabout making the present better first?
We haven't been able to utilize solar to the degree we have been able to utilize oil for all that long, and since it has, our utilization has only grown.
"Commercial concentrated solar power plants were first developed in the 1980s. Since then, as the cost of solar panels has fallen, grid-connected solar PV systems' capacity and production have doubled about every three years. Three-quarters of new generation capacity is solar"
This says nothing of, say, hydro power, which we have been using for a while
> That's like saying "in any case, the future will be better". As humans have shown, worse comes before better in history. Howabout making the present better first?
Mate I said nothing about our future or present. It's just absurd to assume our past has any bearing on how super-advanced space-faring civilizations will utilize technology.
Maybe, but to me, it would be as if we dug into a prairie dog's tunnels, killed them all and stole whatever little bits of food they have. It just doesn't make sense.
So how is it that the amazon is disappearing? Coincidence or human interference?
Humans have demonstrated a cycle of 1. exploitation to the point destruction, 2. Realisation of the damage they have inflicted, 3. Green washing and band-aid fixes 4. Rinse and repeat.
Be it waste handling, colonisation, industrial revolution, slavery, oil extraction etc etc.
At least for the time being, prairie dog tunnels seem safe.
Like I said, we should probably care more, and generally speaking, we do, over time. I'm not suggesting we're perfect, that we haven't made any mistakes, or that we won't make any more - just that we're slowly learning how to do better.
> Be it waste handling, colonisation, industrial revolution, slavery, oil extraction etc etc.
Interestingly, most of these have seen lots of progress in reducing the harms - if not practically eliminating it altogether, such as with slavery.
Colonisation and industrial revolution have reduced the harm? For whom?
Looking it from a white, western male perspective, you're right. From other perspectives this might well not be the case.
A lot of technology has short term benefits but are, in the long term, net negative to either us as species or the environment around us - which is the life support system for us. We as a society have not got a "undo" button for much of this technology, since once the damage has been done in real life, it stays in real life.
So we develop technology, see it fail, and try to fix the issues with more technology not realising that technology might be the problem. Or perhaps it's because we don't have the simplicity of an "undo" button.
reply