It very often _is_ an anchor, and they are usually dropped and dragged on purpose for the effect of cutting the cables which are clearly marked on charts as places to not drop anchor
The chances of it being due to accident seems astronomically low, but I didn’t realize the intentional cutting was by an actual anchor. That makes sense though, as it would be an easy, discreet method.
I think that is OP's point though, that when we open the door to things that are different not in kind, but only in degree, then we are likely to always expect the degree to increase
Yes I know that this is the slippery slope but it also accurately describes the trajectory of politics in America at basically every step
Jay Leno also doesn't feel a lot of pressure to own those kinds of cars because they're not really what he's into. When you look at what he actually does, he's a collector of and benefactor for the restoration of niche vehicles.
It is uncontroversial to say that Ferraris are cars of note. Somebody will save them. His resources are better spent on the stupidly niche things that nobody will care about if he doesn't. So it's easier for him to say "meh, not for me" than it is for someone to whom those kinds of cars are more relevant.
I haven't heard anyone say it out loud, but I'd wager it's in large part related to things like Chinese solar panels containing remotely triggerable kill-switches and/or having the ability to function as unauthorized mesh relays
You can trace out the circuits on a traditional solar panel. They aren't complex devices. If someone managed to hide some kind of control chip in there and also some sort of connectivity to trigger it then my hat is off to them.
I would worry more about the inverters, including microinverters.
Also consider that if someone is doing industrial sabotage on that scale it would be much easier to attack the fossil fuel and nuclear power plants and their enormous computer controlled generators. Even hydroelectric would be susceptible. Or maybe attack the substations. There is nothing unique or special about solar panels that makes them a good target, and their highly distributed and diverse nature actually makes them more difficult.
Depends if you can exploit the system directly from the Internet or if you need to break into hundreds of thousands of individual networks before you can trigger the attack.
I could see subterfuge in the inverters, but aren't panels themselves electrically very simple? I would think a rogue device within the panel itself would be apparent.
It's still worth examining the panels in minute detail. I just think it would be a ton more difficult to hide much functionality within a panel.
This isn’t a thing. As in - try sitting in on a power purchase negotiation where the minutiae of every conceivable risk is debated for hours on end and this never even comes up.
I mean it's also probably because his solo transatlantic flight planning was famously very meticulous, and it was notable because he had started his career more recklessly, but earned a reputation that added 'cautious' to his preexisting reputation of 'capable.'
If you can avoid adding an extra service without paying too much penalty, it means not having to acquire an extra skill or hire another devops person or keep yet another service in sync / maintained / etc.
The cost of adding services to an app is so much higher than people give it credit for at organizations of every size, it's shocking to me that more care isn't done to avoid it. I certainly understand at the enterprise level that the value add of a comprehensive system is worth the cost of a few extra employees or vendors, but if you could flatten all the weird services required by all the weird systems that use them in 30,000+ employee enterprises and replace them with one database and one web/application server, you'd probably save enough money to justify having done it.
Where I work did an inventory a few years back of their systems and found that we had about the same number of databases (not tables!) as employed engineers, counting all deployed (QA and prod) instances.
The team on that inventory project obviously created a new database to put their data in, plus QA and test replicas. They (probably) have since moved to another DB system but left the old ones running for legacy applications!
I went through this recently as I was buying housewares for my soon-to-be-moving-out daughter, and I was shocked to learn there's a pretty easy hack to knowing which Pyrex is which (at least for modern versions)
-- The good borosilicate glass is branded with uppercase "pyrex"
-- The potentially bad soda glass is branded with lowercase "pyrex"
There are other clues too, like that the borosilicate ones aren't typically sold in the US, ergo typically aren't marked with imperial units, but if you're on the prowl for one or the other, upper/lower case is the surest giveaway
(unless there are some counterfeits I have not knowingly encountered)
For what it's worth, the article says the exact opposite
Protip: Look for all-caps PYREX graphics which can either indicate that is vintage or that it’s from Europe, where a company called Arc International owns the Pyrex brand and still makes its cookware out of borosilicate.
Borosilicate glass is also very noticeably lighter than normal soda-lime glass.
After you have handled both kinds of glass it is difficult to confuse them, especially in bigger vessels.
Besides the fact that borosilicate glass has a lower density, the vessels made of borosilicate glass are made typically with thinner walls than those made of normal glass, which makes even greater the weight difference.
You have it flipped. The "good" versions are in all caps, the newer models are lowercase. I have some old, borosilicate pyrex and the name is capitalized. If you look up a new pyrex measuring cup, you'll note that the name is lowercase.
