Who really knows any more. A couple years ago Apple prohibited kernel level firewalls (for security) and rolled out their ContentFilterExclusionList which whitelisted many Apple services, but also created a huge opportunity for attacks. It was quite an appalling gesture on Apple's part.
Since then, attacks surfaced, and they backtracked on their terrible idea.
>> Apple has removed a controversial feature in its macOS operating system that allowed more than 50 of its own apps to completely bypass third-party security tools like firewalls and virtual private networks (VPNs).
>> The ContentFilterExclusionList, introduced in macOS 11 Big Sur, was flagged by the security community and developers late last year as being a potential security risk. This list’s existence in macOS meant traffic generated from Apple software such as Maps and iCloud couldn’t be blocked by a socket filter firewall.
>> Researchers have speculated that Apple excluded its own apps from the oversight of third-party firewalls in the name of overall security. For example, if excluded, these services may continue to receive updates when all web traffic is blocked.
It's a game, one I don't play, but if you ruin kid fun of course you'll get eyerolls... regardless of your background.
My recovery is just to own it, and say that I may not believe anymore, but "I'm proud of you sweety for believing". Kids won't take that as condescending cause the notion of Santa disbelievers is built-in.
I think my kid flat out told their friends at pre-school that Santa Clause died. Which lead to some very interesting conversations. We watched the cartoon film Klaus on Netflix (would recommend) and that's how they internalized it. =)
Similar here. When they were two we explained that Santa was as real as Mickey Mouse. They got it immediately. They know the mouse stands for something, and so does Santa. We have fun with it all.
Christmas season is so much easier when you don't have to compete with a fictional, fat, jolly, magic man. The spirit behind it has value, and we celebrate that, along with other traditions.
Colocation provider will bring the circuits to provide best-path connectivity based on packet destination. There shouldn't be an additional charge for this. They are incentivized to manage their bandwidth so data transfers fast, as they are likely charged wholesale for fiber availability.
You will likely be charged 95th percentile mbps based on your usage. (Again, "pipe space required" to your needs.) Basically, whenever you're busiest -- 4pm-9pm are popular times for us in the USA.
Some customers limit their bandwidth themselves (like, only allow max 12mbps file downloads, etc.) especially when they have the hardware to support huge bandwidth. Or your colocation provider can perhaps limit max connection to 100mbs or 1gbps if you want.
Power is usually leased in amps. If you go over amps the circuit will break -- at worst case scenario. But typically they get in touch with you and tell you to upgrade.
Also, they do want to know vaguely what your service is. Because you'll likely lease their IPs, they will question you if you do a lot of email (caution for spam), or run a Tor exit node (legal hassles for them in many cases).
Terminal velocity depends on the object. The terminal velocity of a skydiver is around 200km/h. I'd imagine the terminal velocity of an airliner pointed straight down would be significantly higher even without the engines running. With engines at cruising power they move 700km/h+ in horizontal flight, I'd imagine they could exceed that by a lot in a vertical dive.
Best rough figure I could find for weight of a loaded 737 is around 40 tons, frontal area I'm guesstimating is roughly a 3m diameter cylinder plus ~0.5m average thickness of the 28m wingspan giving 21m^2? For which the calculator gives 262.8m/s or 943.2km/h.
"The Boeing Co. 737-800 was knifing through the air at more than 640 miles (966 kilometers) per hour, and at times may have exceeded 700 mph, according to data from Flightradar24, a website that tracks planes.
"The preliminary data indicate it was near the speed of sound," said John Hansman, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology astronautics and aeronautics professor who reviewed Bloomberg's calculation of the jet's speed. "It was coming down steep.""
I doubt that. I couldn't STOP hearing the arguments last year. Not trying to be 'smart', but just believe a minimal effort to understand an opposing view gets you there.
> hoping someone might have a better response
Regarding required vaccines for grade-school kids at public schools in the U.S.:
1. Aren't actually forced. You can opt out in several ways.
2. The diseases they treat have a much higher death/hospitalization and/or transmissibility rate among children.
3. We better understand the diseases they treat.
4. Approvals for vaccines were not given under emergency order.
5. Meet the CDC's pre-2019 definition of 'vaccine'.
6. Side affects are published, well known, and readily available.
That's just off the top of my head. And I assume you and I agree on most things.
The article confirmed my knowledge. Around here if the eggs are washed and sanitized then you refrigerate them out of caution.
Last year we got a flock of chickens. They are happy, free-range, and "expensive". But we have loads of eggs and constantly give them away. We've seen everyone immediately wash and refrigerate them, regardless. It's just what people are used to.
We give away the "pretty" eggs. Mine, I pick off the hay and scrub off dried poop before cracking. Even so there really is no comparison between the bland, bleach-white eggs at the supermarket and organic ones grown from happy chickens with a balanced diet.
The color of the eggs has nothing to do with flavor. It is a product of the breed of hen. And I grew up around all types of heritage breed organic chickens with white, brown, and even green eggs and can tell no difference between the flavor of their eggs and store bought eggs. And I consider myself a bit of a foodie.
There was a good writeup in serious eats and they found that in blind taste tests, no one could tell the difference. But when people could see what they were eating, they preferred the fresh eggs because they tended to have brighter orange yolks.
Putting a bit of orange food coloring in the store bought eggs effectively squashed the difference.
Bad idea for patents. The public is vastly benefitted by patent expiration. It's also why we can have generic drugs, etc.
Now, exponential cost curve for _copyrights_ is interesting. And arguably already a thing... considering that Mickey Mouse is approaching 100 years old and is not yet in the public domain.
Ideally, I'd like to see tech patents see a sunset of something like 5 years. The current 20 year hold is bonkers.
However, if we keep the 20 year lifetime, then having an exponential cost of ownership would serve to ward off patent trolling companies. They could still exist to some extent but their operational expenses would be a lot higher than they are now. It'd put a number of them out of business (or at very least free up a bunch of patents).
The trick is coming up with good numbers here. Too low and you might as well not add it. Too high and you might as well eliminate patents all together as they've lost their original purpose (to protect the little inventor).
With the proposal for continuously increasing maintenance fees on ownership it is necessary to establish some public mechanism for determining the relative value of patents upon which the the maintenance fees are levied.
One possible solution is to require the IP holder to declare the quit price at which they are willing to abandon their claim and permanently release the discovery into the public domain prior to the expiration date of the patent in exchange for a one time payment.
This should reduce legal fees and court costs. If a firm is notified of patent infringement and pending litigation, instead of hiring a lawyer and going to court and halting production, they could instead crowd source the funds to pay the quit price to the patent office. The patent office would then pay the original inventor and place the discovery into the public domain for everyone so that there was no basis for continuing legal action.
When large tech companies have legal disputes, they might find that it is always cheaper to pay the patent office to immediately destroy each other's patent arsenals, which would also release all of the discoveries into the public domain and level the playing field for smaller firms as well.
If someone is willing to pay the quit price to the original inventor there should be no problem with expiring patents which have been issued for less than 1 day. 1 business day would likely work fine as the minimum duration for patents.
The U.S. had a president not too long ago who tried to shake things up. Ended up giving the patent office truckloads of cash, considered it "job creation". Goal was to improve efficiency, but all it did was unthrottle submissions, and lower quality. On paper, it looked more efficient, apparently.
The U.S. also "harmonized" their patent laws with the rest of the world to reward paper-pushers who are "first to file", instead of those who are "first to invent." Should have been the other way around.
That with lowering submission fees and requirements drastically, those efforts basically turned the office into an even bigger joke.
Getting a patent means virtually nothing without enforcement and protection, and that requires litigation.
First to file has some advantages that are hard to ignore.
It incentivises early submission which means we all learn from it earlier.
It disincentivises submarine patents where one party deliberately hides an obvious invention until another market player has established a business and then proves they invented it first.
Who really knows any more. A couple years ago Apple prohibited kernel level firewalls (for security) and rolled out their ContentFilterExclusionList which whitelisted many Apple services, but also created a huge opportunity for attacks. It was quite an appalling gesture on Apple's part.
Since then, attacks surfaced, and they backtracked on their terrible idea.
https://www.itpro.co.uk/security/firewalls/358338/apple-drop...
>> Apple has removed a controversial feature in its macOS operating system that allowed more than 50 of its own apps to completely bypass third-party security tools like firewalls and virtual private networks (VPNs).
>> The ContentFilterExclusionList, introduced in macOS 11 Big Sur, was flagged by the security community and developers late last year as being a potential security risk. This list’s existence in macOS meant traffic generated from Apple software such as Maps and iCloud couldn’t be blocked by a socket filter firewall.
>> Researchers have speculated that Apple excluded its own apps from the oversight of third-party firewalls in the name of overall security. For example, if excluded, these services may continue to receive updates when all web traffic is blocked.