These takes are problematic because it's clear to most observers that the attacks were, by the standards set by ground combat in Fallujah, NATO air operations in Kunar Province, or operations against ISIL in Inherent Resolve, the pager/radio attacks were drastically more discriminating, and caused a tiny fraction of the noncombatant casualties. This, of course, is also a distorted standard capturing only NATO/aligned combat operations; the picture gets much worse if you pull in Gulf State military operations, Azerbaijan, or Russia/Ukraine.
(Turk's booby-trap argument is challenging for two additional reasons; the first is that the encrypted pagers and ICOM radios we're discussing are military command & control equipment, not items used "in daily life" in the sense contemplated by the booby trap convention, and further the definition of a booby trap in that convention involves a device triggered when random people approach it, not one detonated at a specific instruction by the party that placed it. The history of the booby trap convention is tied up in the human cost of unwinding booby traps after conflicts have wound down, which is not a problem the pagers posed.)
I'm concerned that people attempting (reasonably!) to communicate disapproval for IDF operations generally are damaging their credibility by trying to fold the pager/radio attack into their message. To me, the pager/radio attack is damning for an entirely different reason: with proper seriousness and resourcing, it's clear that Israel was able to incapacitate a near-peer military adversary with vastly lower noncombatant cost than what they've managed in Gaza.
"As an Academy member I could publish such a paper without any review (this is no longer true, a sad commentary on aspects of science publishing and the promotion of originality)."
It has an integrated Python environment in the browser, so the learner can hop right in! That's not even the best part though; I love how well simple concepts are explained. I've been programming for a long time, so there are a lot of things that I forgot aren't a given. futurecoder explains those things really well.
I really cannot recommend it enough! It is a bit pricey though.. JK it's FREE! They don't push it a lot, but they do have an opencollective if you should feel so inclined to donate [0]. I'm not affiliated; just a relative of someone who benefited.
I suspect that there is a strong relationship between distaste for anything crypto and lack of any crypto substantial assets.
The problem is that just about everyone here could be a multi-millionaire if they had just taken a few minutes to set up pool mining on their gaming rig back in 2010.
I think there is a tremendous amount of latent bitterness, embarrassment, and frustration about this. I include myself in this group. Folks should pause to reflect on this and determine how much these facts are clouding their opinions.
Crypto is just a new interesting technology. Maybe it will last, maybe not. But the amount of hate and skepticism on this forum is way, way out of proportion to the reality of the thing.
I have lifted for 35+ years now. The only thing I don't like is how popular powerlifting has become.
Everyone I know that has been into powerlifting for a long time including myself is paying the price with disc herniation, bad knees, etc.
We really need gyms to get belt squat machines or pit sharks so people stop balancing barbells on their spine with huge weights and move up and down. Kind of obvious what is going to happen over time.
Lifting heavier weights than you have previously is super addictive.
I don't think it really helps my mood nearly as much as hard conditioning or even long walks but I don't really know what it is like to not lift at this point.
Banks rip off companies in IPOs by underpricing the stock so their investors get a kickback.
That's the least charitable way to write it, but it's somewhat close to the truth (the other part of the truth is that pricing is hard which is why we have markets).
DPOs allow companies to list at a reference price without losing out on money - they can sell at the true price later.
Banks naturally make up a bunch of reasons why this is bad, but it's mostly nonsense.
When one side does many of these types of transactions per year (banks) and one side may only do one or two in a lifetime (founders) expect the side with more experience to both tilt the deal in their favor and to have a compelling narrative of why it's actually better for you.
There's a funny story (I searched briefly, but couldn't find) that when Elon took Tesla public via an IPO and the bankers told him the initial price he just said "no, at least $XX or no deal". I think the bank price was $17 and he said at least $19, but I could be off on the numbers. They did his price and that price was still too low.
It's a mistake for any company to IPO from now on imo, SPACs are even worse really (unless you're running a fraud in which case SPACs are great).
We're working on something at Remote. While working at GitLab, I saw the issues they were having, so we're building an alternative to CXC and Safeguard.
Launching a little launch page later today, but feel free to email me if you're in need of some help: job at remote dot com.
That's brick-and-mortar: personal service, ready in 30 minutes. Around 8000 yen, frames and lenses. (Not the thinnest lens, no special coating, but very good.)
> You do need your pupillary distance, but you either measure this yourself with the help of a friend
I have a fool-proof way to do this yourself.
Use a mirror and a ruler. Place the ruler on the mirror and stare with your left eye into that same eye's mirror image, such that the ruler's 0 tick is centered on the pupil. Then, open your right eye and close the left. Stare into your right eye across the ruler and note the millimeters. Flip back to the left eye to make sure you haven't moved from zero.
This is dead accurate. Staring into your own eye in the mirror means you have a perpendicular line from either eye to the ruler.
I'm a bit surprised there's no mention of image optimization proxy / services like thumbor[0] (which is open source). Instead of pre-processing all your images, it lets you worry about it later. You can compose different transformations and filters (e.g. add a watermark, resize, crop etc). This is especially useful when things on the website change. It lets you keep the original at full size, and transform them as you need.
There are some commercial services in this space, as well as other similar open source services.
Key Management Systems will be an extremely lucrative business if anyone can come along and get it right. Coinbase could be a leading candidate to operate one, but the opportunity is there for a small player with top tier security talent.
+1 for the DOM Inspector. I have found that kids LOVE pulling back the curtain on a website to see the wizard and play with the code. A fun activity is to have them go to a news site and have them edit the headlines and replace the images to silly things and take screenshots to share with their parents. What really impresses me with this exercise is how quickly some kids will figure out some intermediate hacks when they learn how easy it is to google the things they want to do.
Another suggestion that works for the same reason is to give kids code to play with. I've wasted 20 minutes of class time having kids write a three line "Hello World!" javascript program from scratch. All this did was irritate and bore the kids out of their minds as they struggled with syntax and hunt-and-peck typing.
Instead, when I give kids a great big block of javascript code that does something fun and animated, those kids will go wild with it. This is because changes to different variables can have big effects. They quickly learn to read the code and identify what different parts do. They break the code, and you show them how that's a good thing and how easy it is to revert it back so that it's working again. Code should be a playground. Give the kids a rich playground to run around in.
With the wide adoption of WebGL, it's a good time to get involved in graphics. Furthermore, GPUs are taking over esp. with the advent of machine learning (nvidia stock grew ~3x, amd ~5x last year). The stuff nvidia has been recently doing is kinda crazy. I wouldn't be surprised if in 15 years, instead of AWS, we are using geforce cloud or smth, just because nvidia will have an easier time building a cloud offering than amazon will have building a gpu.
These are some good resources to get started with graphics/games
# WebGL Programming Guide: Interactive 3D Graphics Programming with WebGL
Historically, C++ has definitely been THE language for doing graphics but if you are starting these these, you would have to have really compelling reasons to start with C++ and not JavaScript and WebGL. And that's coming from someone who actually likes C++ and used to write it professionally.
This is more of college textbook if you'd prefer that but the WebGL one is more accessible and less dry.
# Physically Based Rendering & Real-Time Rendering
These discuss some state of the art techniques in computer graphics. I'm not going to claim to have really read them but from what I've seen they are very solid.
(Turk's booby-trap argument is challenging for two additional reasons; the first is that the encrypted pagers and ICOM radios we're discussing are military command & control equipment, not items used "in daily life" in the sense contemplated by the booby trap convention, and further the definition of a booby trap in that convention involves a device triggered when random people approach it, not one detonated at a specific instruction by the party that placed it. The history of the booby trap convention is tied up in the human cost of unwinding booby traps after conflicts have wound down, which is not a problem the pagers posed.)
I'm concerned that people attempting (reasonably!) to communicate disapproval for IDF operations generally are damaging their credibility by trying to fold the pager/radio attack into their message. To me, the pager/radio attack is damning for an entirely different reason: with proper seriousness and resourcing, it's clear that Israel was able to incapacitate a near-peer military adversary with vastly lower noncombatant cost than what they've managed in Gaza.