kibibyte

If you have to be a qualified professional to ensure that a brush is disposed of the right way, well, that's a good way to ensure that they won't be disposed of the right way.

Perhaps thousands of people in the world can show you proofs of security, but very few of them may be able to take into account all practical considerations like side channels and the like.

More on that subject https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-apertu...

I do occasionally wonder if it would still work, but most business reply mail type spam has been supplanted by email nowadays.

The gist of it is: 1. Grind finer (like, nearly espresso fine) 2. Steep for much much longer (like 10 minutes) 3. Don’t press too hard

(3) is generally applicable advice and may already improve your current results. Pressing too hard results in channeling and uneven extraction.

Of course, goes without saying, use good coffee and an appropriate grinder.

Both JPEG (or any other ubiquitous image format) and PDFs are nontrivial formats. And both have their fair share of CVEs (the list of JPEG vulnerabilities is also pretty long, based on that CVE database).

Something that sticks out to me is that JPEG (and most other image formats) is basically a header followed by a large blob of compressed image data, whereas PDF is a mixed-media format combining images and other multimedia, fonts, and a PostScript. And of course, we know that PDFs have all sorts of other crazy fancy features like forms and embedded JavaScript and digital signatures. Based on these facts alone, PDF features is a superset of image formats, and certainly by quite a wide margin. And more features means much bigger attack surface.

There's also another practical consideration of how users generally interact with these formats. Users interact with images primarily through browsers (or Electron-based software), which are sandboxed and have very well-funded security teams behind them. User-uploaded images to image hosts are often re-encoded (and sanitized as a side effect). Notable exceptions I can think of are loading images from a camera (generally a trusted source; and certainly there must be plenty of vulnerabilities in RAW parsers, but people almost never share RAWs) and iMessage (...which is a thing). It's very unusual for a user to be forced the view the image outside of a browser.

PDFs are a different situation: while browsers have well-sandboxed PDF viewers these days, they intentionally implement a subset of PDF features (I think forms is a big one left out, and signatures). You can imagine how easy it is to convince a user that need to download the PDF to disk and open it with Adobe Reader so that they can digitally sign a job offer. I'm aware that DocuSign exists, but I don't think it's ubiquitous enough that every user will wonder "hmm why am I being asked to sign with Adobe Reader instead of using DocuSign".

I hope that better answers your question.

PDFs are "harmless" on their own, but they are user-generated documents that conform to a complex specification. Viewing them requires software that parses them. These parsers are often written in unsafe low level languages.

The (in)security of unsafe parsers reading user-generated input is a tale as old as time itself.

It likely does mean you’ll have to sacrifice a lower average guess count in favor of avoiding losses.

mkl's reply described it the way I would have explained it. There is that inherent power dynamic between parents and children that can make it difficult to speak up. In addition, piano teachers teaching children are effectively in a parental role for that time.

That's something to keep in mind for anyone who finds themselves in a position of authority over children, who are still in the early stages of expanding their perspectives of the world they live in.

I was forced to play piano for 10 years and to do all those recitals and music theory tests. I could never wiggle myself out of it because of all the guilt-tripping. So of course, I went to college and promptly dropped all of it.

And unexpectedly, nearly a decade later, this pandemic thing happened, I returned to piano, recently bought a digital piano, and found a teacher. I practice 1-2 hours every day. And a lot of those skills I thought I would have lost returned pretty quickly.

I have a lot of complicated emotions around this that I haven’t really quite figured out. But if I were to summarize them at their current stage, they’d be something like: (1) I am grateful that I was pushed to learn this instrument, (2) I realized I really disliked my childhood piano teacher, (3) my parents failed to recognize that for 10 years (as evidenced by never presenting the option of finding someone else), and (4) playing to inflate someone else’s ego is absolutely demotivating.

One of the unfortunate effects is that roughly 1/3rd of Mozart’s sonatas are unplayable because I have some bad memories associated with them. Fortunately, there’s plenty of music in the world that don’t trigger those feelings, and I am so glad that I didn’t play that much Chopin back then.

Maybe that might help? I’m not a parent, so consider these raw ideas that need some work to become parenting advice.

And as such, the p2p ecosystems differentiate themselves by giving people ways to pay merchants without explicitly needing to move that money out of the network. So, Cash App issued a debit card, and then PayPal, and then Venmo (yep, even though it's a subsidiary, it's a separate card). And then some of them started using real bank accounts (with routing/account numbers) to back the stored balance. And the result today is that all these p2p apps look awfully a lot like banks, but less encumbered by regulations because they don't do everything that banks do.

Back to your question, why bother changing to Venmo (or Cash App) when PayPal is basically the same at this point? Obviously, the primary reason would be if everyone you know is using not-PayPal. A secondary reason is the same reason that people have different credit cards from different banks: different rewards schemes (yep, there are incentives for using those p2p debit cards).

Zelle is probably the odd one out here, because it's just an extra thing built on top of existing participating banks that already have all these ways of moving money out of their networks. It's effectively a wire transfer replacement without the fee (or a physical check replacement without the check-writing).

(Disclosure: am employed by a company that has a p2p product.)

My employer adopted a similar policy (just not as publicly announced as Airbnb's), and the way they work around this problem is by, assuming you reside in A, allowing you to travel and work in B but explicitly disallowing you from entering an office location in B.

Supporting more range of color depth means that the raw output of the sensor is necessarily bigger. This means we have some range of tradeoffs to make in the camera:

* Save the sensor output directly as a RAW image onto storage. This means your storage medium can store fewer photos. You're also now beholden to the speed of your storage. Specialty photography like wildlife and sports impose requirements like being able to take lots of pictures per second; cameras solve this by having large memory buffers. Slow storage means the buffer fills up quicker.

* Compress your RAW images with lossless algorithms. These do a decent job, but they still result in big files on storage media. Same problems as earlier point. Need quite a bit of memory and CPU on the camera to deal with this, and plus this now competes with how many shots per second you can buffer.

* Compress your images with lossy algorithms (output RAW or JPEGs). Pretty much unacceptable since you don't get to decide what detail the algorithm removes.

Of course, this also imposes hardware demands on the photographer's computer. Big images require:

* Lots of storage. Maybe time to pay for a lot of cloud storage?

* Fast storage too because otherwise Lightroom takes forever to load an image

* Lots of RAM so that Lightroom can cache more images at once so you can flip back and forth with more ease.

* Fast RAM and CPU so that Lightroom can do adjustments without much lag (some of this can be offloaded to GPU, but it's not a drastic improvement).

Now, I think these problems are solvable today. They just require obscene amounts of money.

I do want to add, RAW images by today's consumer-level cameras do support a fairly wide dynamic range. A skilled photographer will know how to work with RAW files to bring out details from the extreme ends of the range (e.g. dark skin against a bright background). But it does require setting up the shot well, and one can only capture so much range (e.g. I have a few bird pictures where part of the bird is still totally blown out and unrecoverable because of sunlight).

There are enough banks in the US nowadays that cover debit fraud that any bank that doesn't do it will really stick out like a sore thumb and eventually lose their customers.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/03/1042885263/pandora-papers-wea...

Planet Money has done an episode on this sort of thing in the past where they found it much easier to open a shell business in the US vs the rest of the world. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/06/1043746410/we-set-up-an-offsh...

> There are no rivers flowing into or out of the lake; the evaporation is compensated for by rain and snowfall at a rate such that the total amount of water is replaced every 250 years.

The missing information from these almonds vs cows debate is how big the two respective industries are in California. (I don't actually know this answer, so I'm curious if anyone knows.)

With the market being this hot (IMO it's a bubble, but only time will tell), enough public investors are clamoring over IPOs that companies could likely get away with a direct listing like this. Given an extended market downturn though (say, if 2008 happens again), companies will likely find those same public investors to be a lot less eager to snatch up new share offerings.

  def collatz(n):
      while n != 1:
          print(n)
          if n % 2 == 0:
              n = n // 2 
          else:
              n = n * 3 + 1

      print(1)