herendin2

Yes, that's what it was designed to be

Yes. That fact that I'm thinking made me think I was certainly wrong

edit: I guess my error might be related to confusing a probability factor with the number of incidents in a period.

edit: The right answer is probably up to 1 in every 10bn stars go supernovae in the universe each year (or 1 in 10bn die and a fraction are supernovae). Thanks: yzydserd and zild3d

I don’t think the research stands up.

They’re restricted or not good enough

Wait a month or three

There’s an option on iPhone’s FaceID to require eyes open and looking at phone to unlock, but this might have been deselected. Or it could be subverted.

Could SpaceX use one satellite to push another?

This procedure would deliberately sacrifice the pushing satellite, but maybe give the pushed satellite enough additional delta-v to reach a working orbit.

Quote:

First, coins like Bitcoin, which are based on the proof-of-work algorithm, are likely more energy intensive than mainstream finance. (But note that this intensity seems to be declining with time.) Second, coins like Ethereum, which are based on the proof-of-stake algorithm, are likely (far) less energy intensive than mainstream finance.

So that’s what the data says. But somehow, I feel like this evidence will satisfy neither the crypto critics nor the crypto advocates. And that’s why in the appendix, I add some obligatory speculation. But for now, let’s conclude with just the facts. To date, it seems clear that Satoshi’s claims about Bitcoin’s superior ‘efficiency’ have not come to fruition.

Because he has such a great tendency to shoot himself in the foot in the legal sense, it sounds as if encouraging the judge to grant his release so he can carry on incriminating himself in interviews would be a smart strategy from the prosecutor's POV

Maybe his own lawyer will be arguing against release

Dreambooth trained on the ground truth photos might help a bit

Thank you for your comment, but I don't agree

"telling the user that the username they typed exists, but they haven't offered the correct password for it" - is extremely different from Just telling the user 'wrong password'. It's different because it provides more information

>If you inform the user the username they typed exists, the chance of them not thinking about double-checking they didn’t mistype their own username increases.

That seems to be a user problem first of all, because it's based on the user's mistaken belief about the uniqueness of usernames. If possible, it would be best to help the user understand this.

Unless the site searches to find out which username the entered password actually corresponds to (which is a whole new, terribly dangerous, can of worms), it can't do better than that

Because any malicious player can easily check whether usernames exist, so hiding that data point is not much good for security.

I assume there are also worries about letting the helicopter fly near it, in case of damage

It's obvious that officials have many incentives to downplay the impact, and dodge and shift blame. When local officials lie, their national government will probably repeat the lies, perhaps unknowingly

Is this quantity significant?

With that understanding, there's only one rational course of action: to secure your supply before they do, and your competitor realized all this.

The only real decision to make is whether to risk the more aggressive move of also locking up your competitor's supply.