Most portable electronics today use some variation of lithium ion batteries, which when it becomes unstable can combust/explode if mishandled. However, devices generally have thermal management software and hardware, as well as multitude of other safety mechanisms like power management systems to handle charge regulation. Unless you intentionally puncture your batteries, they’re not likely to cause any problems on their own.
I did in fact read the paper before my reply. I’d recommend considering the participants pool — this is a very common problem in most academic research, but is very relevant given the argument you’re claiming — with vast majority of the participants being students (over 60% if memory serves; I’m on mobile currently and can’t go back to read easily) and most of which being undergraduate students with very limited exposure to actual dev work. They are then prompted to, quite literally as the first question, produce code for asymmetrical encryption and deception.
Seasoned developers know not to implement their own encryption because it is a very challenging space; this is similar to polling undergraduate students to conduct brain surgery and expect them to know what to look for.
Completely agree with you on the news vs science aspect. At the same time, it is worth considering that not all science researches are evergreen… I know this all too well; as a UX researcher in the late 2000s / early 2010s studying mobile UX/UI, most of the stuff our lab has done was basically irrelevant the year after they were published. Yet, the lab preserved and continues to conduct studies and add incremental knowledge to the field. At the pace generative AI/LLMs are progressing, studies against commercially available models in 2023 is largely irrelevant in the space we are in, and while updated studies are still important, I feel older articles doesn’t shine an appropriate light on the subject in this context.
A lot of words to say that despite the linked article being a scientific research, since the article is dropped here without context nor any leading discussion, it leans more towards the news spectrum, and gives off the impression that OP just want to leverage the headline to strike emotion and reinforce peoples’ believes on outdated information.
While I agree “they should be doing these studies continuously” point of view, I think the bigger red flag here is that with the advancements of AI, a study published in 2023 (meaning the experiment was done much earlier) is deeply irrelevant today in late 2024. It feels misleading and disingenuous to be sharing this today.
You can achieve higher than 1Gbit/s throughput if your wireless devices are connected to the same AP.
I.e. you can transfer photos between your phone and laptop wirelessly if both devices are on MCS index 11 1024 QAM using 2 spatial streams in ideal environment…. Not likely, but it could happen.
You don’t always have a choice as it is dictated by the service provider, but whenever possible, disable SMS based MFA and enable TOTP or something else. SMS based MFA is susceptible to SS7 MitM attack.
The industry by and large have moved on to containers, with docker being the entry point and eventually graduating to something larger and more orchestrated like k8s.
You’d generally use a publisher container (I.e. php:latest), and then volume mount your code into it for development, and eventually baking your own image for deployment. Be mindful to not include secrets (API keys, passwords, etc.) and inject them via environment variables.
Good luck getting that through the system… the cost to run something like YouTube is… well, let’s just say the lack of real competitions speaks volumes.
This is really just best practice for any arbitrary sort of external access; even if you’re using some sort of VPN (wireguard, tailscale doesn’t matter) to get back into your network, as long as there’s an external way into your network, you want to drop that into its own isolated area so in the event a malicious attacker gets through, they’re sandboxed to the area you allow them to.
If you use everything from the same vendor, you could manage them in one place (see Ubiquiti’s UniFi stack as example), but at the end of the day, they serve different purposes and target different parts of your network.
There is only one router on your network. It routes traffic from one machine to another. This is typically also the gateway, and it only has so many ports.
If you want more physical devices connected to your network, you’d need switches to fan out your network.
Un-managed switches essentially takes packets from one port and pass them through another port, easy peasy, nothing fancy.
Managed switches, however, can do more than just take packet from one port, then push it out to the other side. You can set up link aggregation for example, allowing more throughput by using two or more ports to go to the same destination (maybe for example a central file server). You can have L2 vs L3 switches so they route differently. You can have multiple paths to reach another machine, for redundancy but must implement STP to prevent broadcast loops etc.
Once your network grows larger than just Internet for a couple of desktops, it gets a lot more interesting.
Thanks for the clarification! I’m inclined to agree here, small risk of data loss but failing to receive updates all together during peak burst is probably much worse.
Does individual users send activities directly? I thought only users of your instance and remote federated instances send traffic to your instance, so this change would only affect data coming through from the larger instances?
Also, what’s happening with the original request while they remain in queue? Say for example if large-instance.com is sending 11 updates to your instance; while your back end server is processing the first 10, what’s happening with the 11th? Does it get put on hold while your back end churn, or does it get a 200 OK response, despite the request may be failed at a later date? Neither of which seems ideal — if the instance get put in a queue waiting for a response while you churn, or worst yet, if your backend fails and your buffer is waiting X seconds to time out each request, you’re going to hurt the global federation by holding up a spot in their out going federation queue; if the instance is sent with a 200 OK and your backend eventually fails, you’d lose data as the other instance wouldn’t know they’d need to retry.
Sure, but useless blog spam instead of linking directly to The Verge is a user problem, not a UI problem.
Only if their DMM enables options. There are many stocks without options. In that case, the only alternative would be to borrow shares from your broker and sell those shares instead. You’d then have an actual short position that could be recalled by the lender.
Either ways, I’d probably not touch it. I wouldn’t want the theta burn or the risk of getting recalled while price actions tries to figure out a direction.
Civilian here. There are companies that mine, store, transport and broker uranium. These companies employe people with different skill sets from physical labor all the way up to management. An increase in price may lead to an increased level of employment by these companies, thereby increasing the number of jobs, and play a role in impacting the economy at large. It makes sense for this kind of news to be filed in the business section, even if it doesn’t directly affect most of our day to day.
Sure. But the capacitors in the devices do make a pop and the fragments/shrapnels from the damaged devices depart from their physical location at pace that I would not be comfortable with.
If I’m dealing with a spicy pillow situation, the technical definitions as to whether or not something counts as an explosion is the last of my concern.