Thanks! I’ll definitely look into that, though the only issue I can imagine is keeping track of which email that goes to which service (I’m one of those kinds of people that uses “Forgot my password” effectively as a password manager, don’t hate me for it, I have reasons).
Thanks! There was nothing there, so it may be from an older breach like you suggested :/
I would say “debunked” in the sense that quantum mechanics correctly predicts phenomena that don’t exist in classical physics, and relies on the idea that quantum particles obey a probability distribution, rather than deterministic mechanics.
Quantum mechanics appears to work so well for these phenomena compared to deterministic mechanics that it’s tempting to say that the actual universe is in fact governed by probabilities rather than determinism.
I would argue that all physical models of the universe are just that: Models. We can get asymptotically closer to a perfect description of the universe, but no model can ever tell us the true nature of the underlying system it is describing, just be an arbitrarily good description of it.
In a sense, yes and no. It’s far easier to pick out some very irregular signal (human communication) in a sea of noise (all the spectra coming from every planet orbiting a star) than to randomly recognise that a specific planet has a specific atmospheric composition. At the same time: To pick out that signal, they have to be scanning the part of their sky where the earth is.
To put it this way: Any advanced civilisation that takes a closer look at our specific planet (as we’re doing every day with loads of planets) and looks at the absorption spectrum of our atmosphere (like we do) would recognise that there’s a high probability of life on our planet. Maybe they could even infer a high probability of “intelligent” life (broadly speaking). On the other hand, any civilisation that looks in our general direction would likely be quick to notice that there’s some non-random signal coming from around where we are, and may decide to check it out more closely, eventually homing in on our planet. At that point, they’ll likely be quite certain (together with the evidence from our atmosphere) that there is intelligent life on our planet.
Either way, I like the following way of looking at things: The universe is estimated to be around 13 billion years old. The Earth is estimated to be around 6 billion (please arrest me if I’m wrong here, I’m talking off the top of my head). For the first couple billion years, no planets, or at least planets with relatively diverse elemental composition, existed. I see it as not entirely unlikely that we’re quite early in developing a space-faring society in the universal sense. There’s not that many solar systems with the composition needed to sustain life as we know it that came into existence before ours, so we might just be first.
If that’s the case, we might be the civilisation that others are warning each other about in a couple million years.
I’ve been doing the same thing, went back to read it now, and I have to admit I had a good time. Even though it took time to manually turn my comments into gibberish, it gave some hilarious results!
I’m all for age of consent, but considering that you can have graduates as old as 19-20, and teachers as young as 23-24, I have to admit it seems a bit strange to put restrictions on what they can do outside of (1) what is legal, and (2) what effects their job (like having a relationship with a current student, especially one that you teach).
Like, I know several people in my graduating high-school class that were with someone older than our youngest teacher, a couple of which are still together with the person 10 years later.
I’ve been missing an alternative to Facebook that I can use for non-anonymous planning of events and communication in hobby groups etc. and I had never heard of any of the “Facebook-type” federated stuff before!
Now I just need to convince a bunch of people that this is viable to use without being the annoying guy…
To be fair, @d00phy did say that
They also started actively working to stop folks jailbreaking. That part, I thought, was too much. Just tell them they void the warranty by jailbreaking and refuse support.
I think it’s fair to void support for someone that goes ham in the terminal and breaks a bunch of shit, at least if you explicitly state that doing so will void support. You have root access on your macbook, but I assume the average person using it knows more about what they’re doing than the average person jailbreaking their phone (which was pretty much anyone as far as I can remember). Also: If you tell support that you opened the terminal and typed a bunch of stuff and now your macbook is broken, I assume support is likely to tell you “tough luck…”
Ahh, that makes sense. How did you go about doing that? It’s not like you have a terminal to mess around in on an iPhone? Is the reason I haven’t heard of it in a while that it’s harder/impossible in newer iPhones?
Also: Why would apple prevent you from having root access? The way I see it, when I buy a phone, just like a pc, I should be allowed to do what I want with it.
I think this analogy is quite good :) something I’ve always been wondering though: In practice, how do scientists create entangled particles and separate them?
Since you chose to point it out: My reason is that I regularly need to be able to log into things on a non-personal machine, sometimes without access to my phone. So no, a password manager for all my accounts is out of the picture. I either write stuff down, remember it, or - sometimes - forget it and need to reset my password.