I use an app to mute my android device's volume when "advertisement" appears in the "now playing" notification. For the past 4-6 weeks I've noticed Spotify will sometimes 'fail' to accurately update the "now playing" notification. I brushed it off as a bug, but this ToS makes me wonder if they are collecting device volume (which they can definitely do in android) and perhaps testing to see if I'm using the notifications to auto-mute? [puts on tinfoil hat]
Pandora will pause the music if it detects you muted your phone (it tells you this, not a hypothesis) so I always mute it and up the volume one bar. This way I still cant hear it but it is not technically muted.
You dont even have to take it literally. I learned from Asop's fables and I acknoledge animals can't talk. What I got from Noah's ark wasnt that God is a genocidal maniac or he loves us all very much, but that if you know what needs to be done, do it and don't care what others think.
Yeah, even if the whole base of the story is lunatic.
Sorry, but the Noahs story does not makes sense logically (all the different animals on one ship) nor morally. Killing everyone and only spare some lunatic.
But if you can take from it "do what needs to be done" well, good for you. But I would argue a common trivial dantasy book contains as meaningful wisdom if you neglect 90% like with the bible.
I do not call the flood lunatic. I rather meant the idea that the all-loving god send it to wipe out his own creation but then decides to spare some and instruct him zo build a boat so humans and animals can survive....
Btw. that the scenario is allmost word for word the same as in the Gilgamesh epos, is another funfact.
Op really cool idea. One issue and two questions:
Issue:if someone got a password list, they clean it up by removing anything between the + and the @ so it dosent add too much protection
Question1:if I get an email from someone addressed to a hashed address, could I easily figure out who I gave that email to?
Question2: will you be porting to Firefox?
Regarding the issue I fully agree with the answer of luckylion.
Q1: Since it almost has to be used in combination with some sort of password manager, you could compare the hash with the service you signed up for. But that's a bit inconvenient. Since you receive a mail for each new signup, maybe set up a mail filter, that gathers all first mail to a hash in a dedicated folder. This way you can compare the sender with the first mail for specific hash when receiving new mails. This would have the benefit to have the data right inside your mail app of choice.
Not OP but removing the hash will not really help, even if you've used the same password on multiple sites, because the attacker would need to know which hash was used to sign up for other services.
Compromised myname+leaked@example.org:mypassword won't help getting into my account at somewebsite that is registered to myname+secure@example.org:mypassword.
And, I suppose, it forces you to use a password manager, because there's no way you're remembering the email, even if you're using the same password ;)
No, Snapchat said they get deleted from their servers after 30 days, and that was after law enforcement got their panties in a knot. Unless youre saying Snapchat is lying about that.
Except this what separated them from the competition. It would be like if Apple confessed iOS was Android with different graphics. Also Snapchat can mine your data without keeping your pictures forever and ever.
I read that these were going to be used for cargo in hard to reach places. However, if there is a need for alot of cargo then an airport usually already exists, and drones would probabally be more economical for smaller packages. Other than that? I think niche cruises like in that one episode of Archer.
> However, if there is a need for alot of cargo then an airport usually already exists, and drones would probabally be more economical for smaller packages.
Airship plans are for heavy hauling, not delivering amazon packages. TFA's airship lifts 10 tonnes. Lockheed Martin's LMH1 is planned for 20. The goal is large / bulk cargo in low-infrastructure or hard-to-access locations.
Traditionally, airships have required large ground crews to managing mooring/unmooring operations. Have they solved that problem? Delivery to low infrastructure areas by definition means it would be hard to assemble a trained ground crew. I suppose you could drop cargo without mooring and go home again.
That'd be why the new generations of airships are not lighter than air but mix buoyancy with a lifting body: hybrid airships retain some of the low operating costs and long range of an LTA airship, but because they're not actually lighter than air they can be landed on the actual ground and secured more conventionally.
The r/lolicon subreddit and they have placed a site-wide ban on posting or linking to cartoon pornography that depicts characters who appear to be fictional children.
That's right, they aren't. Now, let's have a reasonable dialogue about the consequences of uranium mining vs the supply chain for materials for wind and solar.
All of these technologies are zero-on-site emissions, and that's a useful distinction of course (compared to coal). But of course we still need to consider the externalities of the rest of the process.
Not just supply side. Decom of old wind units is difficult, and they are mostly non-biodegrading fiberglass, carbon fiber, and polyester and epoxy resins, apart from their easily recycled metal bits.
So far, we are trying to repurpose them, but its not a great solution. We can only use so many turbine blade park benches.
Personally, I think we will look back on wind power as a curious mistake, in comparison to solar farms and nuclear.
> So far, we are trying to repurpose them, but its not a great solution. We can only use so many turbine blade park benches.
Very interesting. I didn't realize this - thanks for bringing it to my attention. Do you happen to have a link handy where I can learn more about these sorts of efforts?
You just shifted the goal posts from power inputs to raw materials, but whatever. Let's have a discussion about production of rare earth elements vs. in-situ leaching of uranium.
The facts are quite simply that nuclear uses the least amount of materials and has the lowest overall resource consumption.
Uranium is mined threw one hole in the ground and is much cleaner and less destractive then virtually all other forms of mining. Furthermore you only need tiny amounts because the the energy density.
The mining required for solar and wind is larger by orders of magnitude.
The same goes for land use. Nuclear has a minuscule land use impact.
On carbon solar, wind and nuclear are all so much better that it hardly matters and calculations become way to specific about what was transported where and so on.
Nuclear pays for the decommissioning and for the waste. The 'waste' is all captures and does not harm anybody (not even animals). Compared to the waste form solar and wind that is not properly accounted for in most of the world.
So nuclear is overall has the smallest environmental impact.
