Murex also has significant religious significance to Jews. It is the source of the biblically mandated blue threads for four cornered garments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekhelet
Generally speaking, in two different ways: (a) cipher modes will usually use a combination of initialization vectors, block chaining, or an incrementing counter to perturb the encipherment of each block so that repeated data does not result in repeated ciphertext and (b) encrypted protocols will include a section to be filled with random "nonce" data so that repeatedly enciphering the same message will also result in different ciphertext, and might also add random padding so that the length of ciphertext can't be used to deduce the length of a particular message.
Modern cryptography solves this by using randomness (IVs, nonces, padding, salts) so that even identical plaintexts encrypt to different ciphertexts, eliminating predictable patterns.
What is the source for this extraordinary claim? Also, malware hosted in the play store has the property of being tied to an identity which can be banned.
1. Most users do not use fdroid or APKs to download software. They download software from the play store.
2. Therefore almost all malware will target the play store.
3. Therefore most malware actively used comes from the play store.
4. Compounded, the play store does almost nothing to prevent malware and actively encourages certain types of malware like spyware and adware.
5. Compounded, Google gets a cut from each piece of malware sold on the play store or advertised on the play store, therefore they have no incentive to prevent malware in any significant way.
> 3. Therefore most malware actively used comes from the play store.
This isn't necessarily true even if you're right on all the other points. Even if most malware is on the Play Store, it can still be true that, out of the Android users that DO get malware (or rather, those that actually report malware to Google), most of them got it from outside the Play Store.
It can be true that a minority of users get any malware at all because Play Store is safe, but most users in that minority get malware because they are open to using apps from outside Play Store.
If Google is making this change in service of safety, they would protect a large chunk of that minority, by verifying apps downloaded outside Play Store. If it's necessary for Google to help these users, this change is not "completely unnecessary".
The steel man is that the vast increase in production and availability of porn has never been higher and has created a generation of porn addicts who have unhealthy ideas about sex and the opposite sex. These unhealthy ideas often manifest as anti-social behaviors which lead to loneliness and depression.
Throughout the 20th century we went from drawings of the intimate and obscene to photos, followed by video, then with sound, then delivered by mail, then down the street, and finally right in your pocket. All the while women’s right have been largely improving while actual violent crime has been decreasing.
The world population also exploded in almost every corner from hundreds of millions a to billions.
Relationships, procreation, gender views, and such also depend heavily on economic outlooks and have tracked that rather than porn in every comparison I can find.
I disagree with your assessment that porn causes those things anymore than violent video games cause violence.
As always when it comes to these ("obviously") destructive behaviors, I feel like we don't quite know for sure if the porn addiction comes from people feeling loneliness and depression, rather than the other way around. People tend to jump quickly to the latter theory, but AFAIK there really isn't any consensus that's actually so.
In this case, we actually know (from some recent studies) that "porn addiction" doesn't actually involve any more usage of porn than a control group—what it does involve is guilt around the usage of porn.
I'm not saying unfettered access to an insane amount of porn is healthy, but how does it lead to anti-social behavior. No one is chatting up a person in a cafe then trying to have unprotected anal sex right there in the cafe. I could see it creating unrealistic expectations for men and women, but what's the connection to anti-social behavior?
A lot of pornography is misogynistic. Not all, but a lot. It depicts women as objects to be used, it normalizes sexual violence and degradation, and it focuses mainly on male pleasure. You watch enough of it and you start to internalize these attitudes.
I've seen women complain about men putting their hands around their necks during sex because the men saw a man do it in porn. It's a rather upsetting trend.
No arguments from me on porn being misogynistic and aimed at men. However, it's not like men weren't creeps before porn was invented (saying this as a man). Look at history and there's endless examples of old men marrying 13 year olds, of sexual assault and harassment, etc... Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't see modern porn doing much in making that any better or worse. In fact, as porn has proliferated over the last 50 years, we have made progress in the things that people say porn degrades. Obviously correlation does not equal causation but it's worth thinking about.
Fair points, but the main difference with the state of 'modern' porn is that its accessible to young men during puberty (and earlier), via the internet.
Finding a Playboy magazine in the bushes wont radicalize a 13 year old, but watching BDSM or CNC at an age where you're beginning to form your sexual ideologies can't be healthy.
I completely agree that the intensity of porn that can be accessed at a young age is deeply concerning. I have two sons. If I found a playboy in their room at age 13 we would have a discussion but I wouldn't really care. However, if I walked in on them watching extremely hard core pornography I would be pretty concerned.
> who have unhealthy ideas about sex and the opposite sex
Yeah, we should go back in time to when good men used to regularly beat up and rape their wife just like god wanted. Where anything not cis and hetero was not tolerated. Where relationships where based on dominance and very seldom on love.
Nope. As sad as that may be, in terms of having healthy ideas about sex, we are probably at the peak since the neolithic revolutions. Times have never been better, especially in progressive Western nations.
For porn to have ruined anything where would need to be something to ruin in the first place. Young men had unhealthy ideas about sex long before porn existed. They probably have a little bit more of a clue now.
Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely willing to entertain the idea that porn and especially over consumption of porn is problematic in many aspects. However it is not a major societal issues. And I absolutely abhor the idea of the state censoring porn to enforce personal and specifically sexual morality. There is good reason civilized countries don't do this.
Long before modern porn, there were laws that a man could not be charged with raping his wife. Society largely looked the other way when a man beat his wife. There was a time when underage women could be trafficked by their parents into marriage against their will. There was a time when a woman who accused a man of rape would basically end up on trial herself while his lawyer dragged out every single romantic or sexual relationship she had in graphic detail so that the jury would believe "she was asking for it."
I am under the impression that "unhealthy ideas about sex and the opposite sex" have been with us for a very, very long time. If we observe that porn addicts have such unhealthy ideas, are we confusing correlation with causation?
At least in the U.S. the equality of women in society (and in law) has slowly risen over the last 100 years. Over that same period the availability of pornographic images has also slowly risen (from magazines, to VHS, to the Internet, to streaming videos, to VR).
So if we're looking at correlation, doesn't the data imply that _more_ porn is associated with _more_ rights for women?
(Conversely, the vast majority of people calling for and enacting policies for more restrictions on pornography are also rolling back rights for women.)
Eh, not quite steel. "A generation of" is kind of slippery language, as is "has never been higher". How many people? How much more available is porn vs 10 years ago? You seem to imply many/most born during a certain period are porn addicts, and that they wouldn't have been 10, 15 years ago because porn wasn't as available. Not sure either is arguable.
It does. This whole "small amount of pressure on the trigger thing" stemmed from a video by "Wyoming Gun Project", in which he did the exact same thing to a P320.
In this case, the historic reputation for quality is entirely disconnected from the company. SIG USA shares a brand with the German and Swiss companies with the same name, but it is not the same company that made the P226
All 3 entities - the German, Swiss, and US entities are owned by a German holding company L&O Holdings, but yes, the basis of the 226 was designed by the original Swiss entity.
I have a bag of attiny13a that cost me $0.20 per chip. It is fully self contained. Just add a very small capacitor, give it from 2.8V to 5V. And then you program it the way you want. You can even program and debug it via a single pin if you wish.
At this cost for a hobbyist it's just hard to beat. It can be anything you want it to be in a few lines of code.
I personally write Rust for it, not Arduino C++, but it would work just the same.
I do not, sorry. You can read the datasheet of the chip learn everything about it. You can then search online for some implementation of firmware uploader/programmer like "avrdude". Those chips are very simple, all controlled by toggling bits and values in registers.
You actually can: The Puya PY32 ranges from about $0.08 on up (well, $0.15 if you only want to buy 5, but the cheapest one is $0.0959 in qty 200 and $0.0676 in qty 5000+). ARM Cortex m0 in a 10-pin ESSOP-10 surface mount package: https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Microcontrollers-MCU-MPU-SOC...
Kind of mind-blowing. 24mhz 32-bit computer for under a dime.
But you'll learn more about the analog-ish world and not need to deal with SMD if you go the 555 route. And it'll save you power vs the astable monovibrator with NPN transistors.
> MacOS has a feature called Gatekeeper, which limits what software you can run on your Mac to only those applications that Apple approves
This is a lie. Gatekeeper in no way limits the software you can run. It presents an easier experience to launch software downloaded from a browser if the developer chose to submit it to apple for a malware scan.
