I know that patent trolls are a thing, but I was under the impression that these patent trolls would still have to produce lots of specific but still broad patents. For example, they will file a patent for a whole class of compounds for treating a specific group of diseases without having the data to back it up.
But in this case it is even worse!
They patented a trivial idea - “send voice commands from phone to computer” - without providing any novel practical implementations of the idea. How is this acceptable?
patent/US9794348 Using voice commands from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer
A method of using voice commands from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer. The method includes receiving audio data from the mobile device at the computer. The audio data is decoded into a command. A software program that the command was provided for is determined. At least one process is executed at the computer in response to the command. Output data is generated at the computer in response to executing at least one process at the computer. The output data is transmitted to the mobile device.
The title looks dystopian but the idea seems sensible.
Assessing the quality of sources was a pretty important section covered multiple times during my schooling. But not everyone was schooled like me, and others simply didn’t practice their source-checking skills after school.
I would need to see the ‘pre-bunking’ videos to form an opinion on them, but from reading the article I get that the aim is to create high-quality videos about how to assess sources, and help distribute these videos to the masses. It is a very important skill and many people lack it, so if that is what they will do it is a great idea.
In my mind, I do see the concept of a revolution that way - a revolution that topples the power structures creates a power vacuum. This leads to instability and for a competition to fill that void. The idea is that the people who have a better chance of winning the race to fill those voids are those who are willing to exploit the most effective tools of power - violence, oppression, and reward. So, a revolution creates an instability that is likely to be exploited by the greedy to the detriment of others.
But I have never been in a revolution. My ideas of what a revolution looks like comes from that trope that you mention - movies, video games, and novels will narrate these dynamics, and through repeated exposure to this logical sequence it has come to feel natural.
You bringing up this point makes me re-consider what I believe. On the one hand, I do not think that these ideas are fully invented - they make sense, and many revolutions in history have indeed followed this trope, and a revolution will cause an instability that will hurt people, so I am not going to do a 180 and throw away all my intuition about the topic.
However, it is also obvious that reality is a lot more nuanced, and it makes sense that these tropes can be used to highlight and re-inforce the negative aspects of a revolution. It is good to think about that.
Yes, I agree with your assessment. I think that from the point of view of geo-politics, countries tend to make self-serving choices. Human rights are usually not a priority. There are human rights abuses all over the world, but if addressing them does not serve a political purpose, they tend not to appear in the spotlight. As soon as an excuse is needed one can of course summon these abuses and blast them through the media.
I am not saying that I agree with this approach or that this is the way I think thinks should be. But I think that this is the answer to why the EU does not impose sanctions to the US. Similarly, the US lets the Saudis get away with a lot of human rights abuses to avoid souring relations. And the Israel <-> Palestine conflict, why is the world so chill about that?
He is a very respectable journalist. I was not familiar with his work, but I have looked at some summaries and excerpts and it is for sure fantastic work. His fame and prestige is absolutely enough of a reason to listen to him and take him seriously, but no amount is enough to accept what is attributed to an “unnamed source” says as gospel. You have to trust him, his ability to pick a reliable source, and the source itself - without identifying the source! It is quite a bit to ask for such a claim that is as important as this one.
Because the US is a closer ally and the EU was forced to pick a side. The EU did not move spontaneously and alone, it moved as part of coordinated action. Furthermore, Russia launched a direct attack into European territory, making it a much more direct military threat.
What you are proposing here is different. You are asking the EU to spontaneously and unilaterally decide to go after its most powerful ally because of the human rights violations that they are committing somewhere else.
We all have biases. I am not trying to say that a “bias” is necessarily “wrong”. Biases can be very helpful - perhaps even necessary to stay sane. Imagine trying to live a perfectly un-biased life!
What is important is to be aware of our own biases - and also to think of how the biases of the “other side” will manifest themselves.
In this case, you have said:
But deranged liberals of all ranks, from mainstream “journalists” to the rabid NATO defenders of lemmy.ml, tried to gaslight you into thinking that at best the jury was still out on who did it and at worst accused Russia for doing it even though they stood to lose the most because of the outcome.
And I take this to mean that this article will once and for all settle the question of who was responsible. But using a secret source is not going to be enough to settle the question - those biased in favor of the US will claim that the source is a lie, some of those without much of a vested interest either way might think "Alright, great story, but what’s the evidence? "
Answering this question is going to require a lot more than “Someone told me. Trust me. I won a Pulitzer”.
The article sets forth an interesting case, and the idea that the mines were planted during BALTOPS 22 is compelling.
However, the author uses a top-secret source that conveniently has a birds-eye view of the issue, personally participated in different secret meetings at different points of the process, and is knowledgeable in multiple key areas. With so many specific details, it should be easy for this source to be identified by the other people involved.
This is an extraordinary source that is perfect for this piece. Accepting an extraordinary source requires extraordinary evidence. The source chooses to remain anonymous - and that is sensible - but without supplying any evidence to validate the source’s claims the author won’t earn the trust of many of us.
When accepting whether to trust a piece of information or not - ask yourself: would I believe equally-sourced claims of the opposite? For example, if a journalist claims that Putin personally ordered the attack - and the evidence provided for the claim is “a close source to Putin told me”, followed by a cohesive and sensible story of why Putin would want to do that, would you believe that right away? If the answer is “no”, but you do find yourself trusting this source immediately, then you are experiencing a confirmation bias.
What version do you have? I think you have one of the older versions, you can find the latest one here: https://github.com/dessalines/jerboa/releases/tag/0.0.26
This is an article from shortly after Osama Bin Laden was killed.
The official story is that the Navy Seal team took the body somewhere in Afghanistan where it could be positively identified. Then, while on board an aircraft carrier, Bin Laden was given a Muslim funeral and his body thrown into the ocean.
The Pentagon claims that this was done in order to respect Muslim tradition and because they did not want the body to be buried somewhere on land where other extremists would be able to build a temple.
There are multiple reasons why the body can be considered of value. For example, interested parties might need very hard evidence of Bin Laden’s dead, with a ‘trusted’ test result made abroad not being enough. And also because of the body’s historical value and its value as a collectible (as bad as that sounds).
So, if the US is faced with two options:
(1) Bury the body at sea
(2) Lie about burying the body at sea
Option (2) would give them every benefit of (1), but they keep the body and its associated value. Since there is no possible way to disprove the claim of a body being thrown into the ocean, other than finding the body and identifying it, it is quite an easy lie.
The conspiracy theory is that those in charge of making this kind of decisions in the US would chose to lie in situations where it will optimize the outcome, and that they have done this in this case.
As a ‘conspiracy’, it is part of the larger topic of trusting the government and those in power. Will those in power tell the truth when an unfalsifiable lie will lead to a better outcome?
I am not convinced that the people who have spear-headed several of the crypto projects are being dishonest to make money. So, then, who is the scammer? A pump-and-dump scheme is a scam, but that does not make the underlying asset a scam. The market price of growth stocks is extremely inflated, but that does not mean they are a scam. These are speculative assets that are expected to appreciate due to the self-serving feedback loop of the market.
From an investment perspective, crypto can be seen as a highly speculative volatile asset with a value that is largely decoupled from intrinsic value. That does not make it a scam. Someone can scam someone else by making guarantees about the future - but it is entirely possible to do this with any other asset.
But, more importantly, crypto is practically useful. What is a better way of paying for drugs online than using monero?
I know of a few experiments that are used to showcase the confidence that understanding the laws of physics can give you - like placing the heavy pendulum against one’s nose or briefly sticking a hand into an extremely hot or cold liquid (Leidenfrost effect).
I think that holding a metal spoon with the hand as it bridges a metal-burning circuit is on a higher plane of confidence 💀
Hey, thanks! And thanks @firstname.lastname@example.org for the initiative! It is a good idea to have these sidebar swap links!
Sorry I had missed this. I missed the post in my own instance, I just found it by coincidence while browsing beehaw to discover communities 😅
I would be lying if I gave you a number. I have never had to deal with many users, so I can’t really tell you at what point you can expect problems. It could be 50 active users at once, it could be 500, maybe even 5,000 - I really don’t know. Consider that uploaded images will fill up your SSD, and that multiple active users at once will go through your network connection.
But I really don’t know the limits. Someone else hopefully can chip in.
Try removing the lemmy.conf file from /etc/nginx/sites-enabled,
And then run:
sudo wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kradyz/Tutorials/main/files/uebishe.conf /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/uebishe.conf
sudo systemctl restart nginx
Or, I have made an nginx config file that will work for you
If you already created an nginx configuration file, move it somewhere else. Then, get the new configuration file to the nginx folder, and then restart the nginx service by running these two commands:
sudo wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kradyz/Tutorials/main/files/uebishe.conf /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/uebishe.conf sudo systemctl restart nginx
Ah! So you skipped this step:
Now i skip old step about “wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ansible/main/templates/nginx.conf -O lemmy.conf”
You need to have the lemm.conf file under /etc/nginx/sites-enabled, this is the file that tells nginx how to manage the connection. Don’t skip that step! Get that file and modify it by adding your domain name
Good idea! Do you mean the bloch sphere? I have changed it to white and added it as the black version was hard to see :-) But if that’s not the qubit image that you meant I can change it!