CanadaPlus

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I don't know, the thing about the internet is that it does bring a ton of value, and operating it does have costs in turn. Maybe Sir Tim is right about DNS being the point where it got commercial, but it was going to happen somehow. Arxiv and Wikipedia still exist, but how do you do Amazon non-commercially? Even YouTube is a challenge.

There used to be a sort of mantra that technology was neutral and people are good and bad. But actually, that’s not true of things on the web

Arguably, that's not the distinction. Technologies can be explicitly of control or of chaos. And then that relative structure or freedom can itself be used for good or for evil.

A central platform is of control, Lemmy or Linux is of chaos. And obviously we lean towards the latter a lot, but for some things, even Lemmy wants central control and monitoring, so it's not evil, exactly.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

But to the layperson at large we’re just pedantically nitpicking.

Important to mention. The idea that the internet isn't actually on their box is already a frontier of public communications.

But, for Lemmy's sake, yeah email, straming, VOIP and video calling, whatever IOT or app protocol.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, it was always going to happen.

[–] CanadaPlus 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ocean mine.

Many sea mines of that era are actually activated by disturbances in magnetism! They're pretty good about not going off unless something large and metal rolls up, since that's their purpose, although anything really old is suspect of not working as designed. That's why when somebody digs up (or just kind of has) an old bomb they detonate it on site instead of trying to move it.

WWII also saw acoustic mines used. Contact mines were and are around too, and I would guess if you don't crush a trigger the same answer about only going off when conditions are met applies.

Modern low-sensitivity explosives can survive an actual plane crash without going off, and will burn instead.

helmet (why not just move the whole sentence into the text, OP?)

SSTF covered everything from here on pretty much perfectly.

On the off chance your helmet does successfully take that kind of punishment, and the blast wave is absorbed enough to not hurt the soldier, there still will be a bunch of hot gases escaping in every direction which isn't great. Better than no helmet, though - the trick is just noticing the grenade, stopping, removing your helmet and gently placing it over top before it blows up, which is why that move isn't actually a thing.

[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

TBF, something's already gone funny if you're finding pipe bombs on the street.

[–] CanadaPlus 3 points 4 days ago

Oooh, something to do if I'm ever in Croatia!

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

That could be it.

Digging isn't free in Sweden either, right? Maybe OP thinks they're ugly, but sometimes good enough is good enough.

[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 4 days ago

And yet, the US pays normal market rates for crude like everyone else.

[–] CanadaPlus 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

IIRC about 20% of the cost of a new home is framing. So even if they make it free, it's a nice little cut, but not world-changing.

The technology itself is still interesting. Maybe you could use it for water works or a chemical plant - things where a large, weird-shaped container is the goal.

[–] CanadaPlus 4 points 4 days ago

Roman Emperor Claudius, so the story goes. If it did happen, it might have been for show rather than because it was really practical for warfare.

[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

No, Claudius actually boated them over to scare the locals into shape. Or reputedly so.

[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 4 days ago

It'd be pretty easy to guess, honestly. Just saying "a lot like a cow, with legs like in the front" would cover it for sculptural purposes - the flattish tail being an excusable detail.

Medieval artists did a lot of this, although sometimes the results were less than perfect:

32
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by CanadaPlus to c/canada@lemmy.ca
 

Not sure how to link the exact episode about a "possible" invasion of Venezuela. If somebody knows I'll edit.

We'll see how it plays out. I'm still not sure they're actually planning to send 200,000 troops, but Trump said they're going to "run it" somehow.

Edit: Moving to invidious.

Original Gem link: https://gem.cbc.ca/about-that-with-andrew-chang

 

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/51360759

You do not get to turn these powers off, they are always active.

This question was inspired by those toy dinosaur things.

11
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by CanadaPlus to c/retrocomputing
 

Modern formulations are proprietary and almost certainly require a cleanroom, but the basic concept has existed for a century. I'd assume there's a history out there beyond what little Wikipedia offers.

Would I be able to DIY a tape that could store tens of megabytes of data, at least?

Edit: This adjacent wiki might have more to say on it, based on the reply I got. I assume digital data amounts to a much higher frequency of recording, though.

I do know audio cassette tapes were used repurposed for digital storage in the early PC era. Was there a noticeable difference based on quality and type of tape?

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/41849856

If an LLM can't be trusted with a fast food order, I can't imagine what it is reliable enough for. I really was expecting this was the easy use case for the things.

It sounds like most orders still worked, so I guess we'll see if other chains come to the same conclusion.

 

If an LLM can't be trusted with a fast food order, I can't imagine what it is reliable enough for. I really was expecting this was the easy use case for the things.

It sounds like most orders still worked, so I guess we'll see if other chains come to the same conclusion.

 

The awkward "nnnts nnts nnts" also made it pretty hard to tune out. And it got a sequel, which is actually fine because they're playing that now instead.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37414239

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37414239

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37414239

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

view more: next ›