Microsoft is using malware-like pop-ups in Windows 11 to get people to ditch Google
Intralexical @ Intralexical @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 125Joined 2 yr. ago
Intralexical @ Intralexical @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
125
Joined
2 yr. ago
Xournal++ is old, but it can directly write on PDFs with both pen tablet and scanned image insertion, and can probably add/remove/reorder pages too— Technically I think its file format links to/embeds the whole PDF file, and then probably exports a new one with stuff added on top, or something like that, but the end result is usually that you can directly edit the PDF.
Or do you mean some kind of cryptographic signing? Well, it looks like Adobe offers a webtool too?
Don't compare this guy to glitches. Glitches have the potential to be beautiful anomalies, and bring the possibility for creativity, personality, and humour in life to otherwise rigid and unyielding systems.
This guy is the rigid and unyielding system. And though I'm not American, it seems his works are anything but beautiful.
dementia […] cancer
more dramatic […] shitting himself on camera, moments of brutally honest verbal diarrhea, endless painful kidney stones…
Interesting to see a few short moments of temporary and trite social embarrassment portrayed as a worse fate than the gradual and drawn-out ablation of everything that you are.
Not to mention that the first example that people always go to when trying to explain utilitarianism is always to use it to justify setting a precedent of murder, as long as doing so might feasibly produce benefits for somebody else in the future.
Plus the future is never certain, while the present is arguably more real in any moment. Consequentialist frameworks in general are basically betting away guaranteed morality in the present in exchange for possible/imagined gains in the future.
Personally I've also found that because everything is just so complicated, depending on what axioms you start with in a consequentialist perspective, you can also not only justify but make it compulsory to do literally any awful and disastrous things both to yourself and to other people.
(Plus you necessarily end up having to introduce some sort of a concept of a "causal event horizon"— How far forwards into the future you are willing and able to try to predict events in order to evaluate the consequences of actions— If you actually try to apply and use utilitarianism or any consequentialist framework— Which means that your ethics change depending on your computing power, plus you're in constant and actually agonising pain because having to always try as hard as you can to feel the consequences of future outcomes as far in advance as possible is fucking excruciating. .. or maybe that was a specific situation (but still, what use is ethics if it just mutilates you as soon as difficult questions need to be asked?))
Utilitarianism: The preferred ethical system for edgy youth, sheltered academics, idealistic extremists, and B-movie villains since the 19th century! ....I say this having previously positioned myself somewhere between those categories.
I do tend to think deontology is just delusion, and virtue is just ego, though— .... Human "philosophy", and academics: Maybe some dead old dudes being paid by Kings and Churches to sit around doing nothing but think weren't actually the best qualified to empathise with how people actually live, and understand what is the right and wrong way to do it— The incentives for sounding good in a clean and neat published paper can hardly be expected to align with the incentives of actually being applicable to the messiness of reality, can they?
Just don't hurt people, Ffs— (And define "hurt" rigorously in terms of game theory and preserved options for autonomous constructive personal growth and equitable power dynamics, epistemology and the preservation of knowledge and feeling plus metaphysics and the preservation of identity and self, and thermodynamics and the avoidance of unconsensual entropification, if you need to)— just don't hurt people; it shouldn't be that complicated..
The same utilitarian ends could have been reached, and should have been reached, in any one of thousands of different ways, years ago, that wouldn't require this.
Fuck the ghoul and all he's done. But just think of the level of political degeneration required to get to the point where a malicious actor gradually being paralyzed by illness in public is your most feasible option for resolving a political problem. I can understand why you would cheer for this, but the reminder that your country is even in such a situation that cheering for it makes any sense at all is itself something that I find horrifying.
Besides, the entire point of utilitarianism is to evaluate possibilities dispassionately, and choose what results in the most useful outcome and end state. Like the other commenter said, "There is nothing utilitarian about taking ghoulish delight in the suffering of an evil old man"— The entire concept of evil is a more deontological or virtue-based construct— He's on his way out, great, so celebrate the fact that he's no longer causing harm, but once he's gone, he actually doesn't matter anymore— Contain the damage, tunc damnatio memoriae.
Idk. I feel for y'all, I guess. In a well-functioning democracy, this should have probably been resolved almost an entire generation ago, and you should barely even have any reason to know his name anymore. Everything about this situation is horrifying, from what he's done to what's happening to him now to the fact that he even still matters at all in the first place.
"The grace of God knows no bounds. But my mercy has some practical limitations."
malware
Actually, yeah, that basically fits.
Don't say that, @FlyingSquid. You're beautiful, and when us primates are doing ruining ourselves, you will inherit the earth and fly over mountains and forests as well.
Who is this "God" Person Anyway?
They are branded, so effort would have to be put into making them appear to be authentic.
Not really. Branded QR codes are just regular, unbranded QR codes but messed up— You basically just stick the the branding right on top, and then let the built-in error correction take care of the rest. Should take all of 5 minutes to set up, or maybe 20-30 if you wanna be a stickler for detail.
And I think it’s improbable that staff wouldn’t notice.
If I were working at the restaurant— I think I'd notice after a couple weeks— They'd have impunity up to then— But even then, I'd just assume the management switched it out or patched it up because they wanted to change the link for metrics or messed up something backend or something like that.
The staff is paid to wait tables, not to audit cybersec from the perspective of the customers.
And again, the roi for the bad actor seems incredibly poor.
Probably highly variable.
If the restaurant has a lot of patrons that are wealthy and technologically illiterate, with banking apps on unupdated phones with known exploits, then you'd think "ROI" is basically everything in the bank accounts of the patrons.
Same if the online menu includes online payment options for whatever reason.
Regardless of age, I think you could probably argue that the small, glowing rectangle in your palm is an inferior reading and dining experience compared to an actual menu.
That's not even to mention the unholy abomination of a tech stack that a system like this would be— Camera, QR decoder, web browser, WiFi/cellular, their web server— That signal might travel hundreds of miles to your ISP, their host, and then back— Probably a couple layers of outsourcing/contracting/helper apps they used to set it up— Though it's apparently normal to take all that for granted these days, it's still sorta ridiculous.
Lmao, I've had literally 40-70GB of highly active application swap on an SSD for the last couple months now because I opened stuff and then didn't close it.
That said, I chose and installed that drive years ago specifically for this use case (though originally for less intensive/more reasonable cases), and I'm aware of the stupidity of letting it be used like this now.
Tater tots are great, though.
Firstly I wasnt even thinking about co2 emisions and was thinking almost exclusively in total mass movement. Secondly when I was refering to the amount of fuel required for slow down for landing I was more so thinking yet again in total mass. Almost all of my points on the matter had to do with the idea of alocating energy toward putting stuff in space.
What do you think the GHG from the manufacturing comes from? Expendable rockets means you're "al[l]ocating energy toward putting stuff in space" much less efficiently because you're spending (apparently) much more fuel and energy to replace the rocket.
If you meant "total mass and fuel in the rocket", then frankly that's an arbitrary and cherry-picked metric in this context. If you're talking about the social impact and technological history of first NASA then SpaceX developing reusable rockets, then "efficiency" should include everything that they're paying for.
I doubt think the falcon is completely bad either, just that it has its niche. If memory serves me right its mostly doing things like putting satalites into orbit, thats a great use of a reuasble rocket.
…So its "niche" is… Literally the entire thing that space launch rockets are scientifically and economically useful for???
Literally every space mission, outside of like upper atmospheric research sounding rocket launches (which aren't really relevant to space launch), is "putting satellites into orbit" (regardless of whether those artificial satellites house crew that they're then going to ferry Mars, or whether they're just there to relay your cat gifs).
All I was stating is that such rockets can be kinda inefficient for certain jobs. To put it in nautical terms you wouldnt use a fishing trawler as heavy cargo ship.
"For certain jobs"— Yeah, no, not really, at least unless you can name those "certain jobs".
Sometimes a payload is too heavy for reusable mode but still okay for expendable mode. But that's not really being "inefficient", just too small, and would be more efficiently solved with a bigger reusable rocket. And there are certification and supply chain concerns which mean that expendable systems like SLS and Ariane 6 still sorta have a place for now, but that's not really an efficiency issue either.
But overall, from tiny cubesats to massive moon landings, reusable rockets are consistently and increasingly demonstrating significant efficiency advantages in all areas of spaceflight, because as it turns out, despite all of Chief Twit's mistakes and harms, throwing away the rocket after you use it once was in fact just a sorta dumb way to do things in the first place.
Perhaps this is showing my ignorance for arospace shit, IDK but as I understand it more fuel and less mass means you can get shit farther. Thats all I was really thinking.
Yeah… I feel like you're getting defensive because I might have come across as trying to dunk on you… Which is... Fair enough, I guess, and sorry if I came across that way.
And I get not wanting to like anything that Musk's tied his name to. But you presented yourself as an authorative/informed speaker on a technical subject, while making a claim that simply isn't true.
Remember it takes about a lot of energy to land something coming down from orbit, that means more fuel, more fuel means more weight. And sometimes it better to put that fuel and weight into putting more shit into orbit.
…That sounds like bull, and quick back-of-the-envelope arithmetic shows there's probably no way it's true in the general sense.
Falcon 9 LEO payload, expended: 22.8t
Payload, recovered: 17.4t
Structural material: Various aero-grade aluminium alloys.
First stage dry mass: 25.6t
Propellant mass (LOX+RP-1): 395.7t
Second stage dry mass: 3.9t
Propellant mass: 92.67t
CO₂ emissions to produce aluminium: 2t·CO₂/t·Al to 20+t·CO₂/t·Al
(Depending on whether fossil fuels are used— Al is very energy-intensive. MINIMUM. Does not include mining, alumina, alloying, machining, etc.)
CO₂ emissions to burn LOX+RP-1: ~0.8t·CO₂/t·Fuel
The launch kinematics shouldn't change too much otherwise, so assume the difference in payload approximately correlates to the fuel amount that must be saved— Oversimplifying and overly linear, I know. (I'm not breaking out Tsiolkovsky for this. You do it, if you want.):
(25.6t * (2t/t)) / ((22.8t - 17.4t) * (0.8t/t))
In even the most conservative scenario, the carbon footprint of the extra fuel to land a Falcon 9 will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12X less than even just the raw material costs to replace the aluminium in it.
If we assume a more typical US aluminium production process for a US company, resulting in 11t·CO₂/t·A instead of 2t·CO₂/t·A:
(25.6t * (11t/t)) / ((22.8t - 17.4t) * (0.8t/t))
…Then we're looking at the carbon footprint of the fuel to reuse a rocket being 65X lower the carbon footprint of replacing it. This is still not even counting either the actual mining, preprocessing, and alloying of the aluminium ore nor the machining nor the rocket structure, so the real number will be even higher.
…In fact, it looks like nearly half of all the carbon emissions from a rocket launch are likely to come from just manufacturing the rocket, not even the fuel it burns. I'm honestly pretty surprised by this too; You'd think, and I've always personally assumed, that the big tank of carbon-based fuel and not the thin sheet of metal around it would release the most CO₂, but apparently not.
((25.6t + 3.9t) * (11t/t)) / ((395.7t + 92.67t) * (0.8t/t))
I guess it makes sense when you remember that GHG costs for other types of vehicles are usually amortized over the useful lifespan of the vehicle in question.
Reusable rockets are just kinda inefficient for a lot of shit.
Remember it takes about a lot of energy to land something coming down from orbit,
This entire premise is somewhere between false and dishonest or misinformed. It costs basically zero energy to land something coming down from orbit, compared to what you've already spent to send it up there in the first place, because all you have to do is lower your periapsis into the atmosphere and then fire a quick thrust burst for a couple seconds to land at the end once air drag has done all the hard work of bringing you down from hypersonic to subsonic terminal velocity. The Saturn V had to be millions of tonnes to get to the Moon, but the command module and capsule to get back was kinematically basically one step above an inert rock with a couple of whoopee cushions strapped to the back.
Call out the shitty labour practices, security risks, and deeply problematic political and economic injustices. But don't try to lie about physics.
The DC-X/Delta Clipper was really cool, but the Space Shuttle was a design-by-committee safety and maintenance disaster. VentureStar didn't go much better either, though that was mostly Lockheed.
NASA's had the tech, the expertise, and the will for a while, but the political process was never going to give them permission to do anything more than slow-moving rehashes and incremental evolutions of old technology.
The fastest predator in the world right now is a dinosaur that can fly at over 200 mph— with razor-sharp claws, and so durable it can survive crashing into moving objects at that speed.
Their friends are scary smart. They're fiercely loyal, and yet ruthless and cruel.
And we've spent the last while spraying their eggs with poison, releasing bio-engineered killer drones into their midst, and planting invisible obstacles right in the middle of their highways.
I love how villainous they look oh my god
They're from before my time. But they also hosted some art that I found after the fact that I really love, so I'm glad (and a bit surprised) to see the data is still up.
That said, they're owned and operated by Russians now. So....
Xournal++ should be a proper PDF reader that can sign a PDF and add and remove pages. Haven't tried doing the latter personally though. It looks a bit old and might be hard to find, but it's always worked suspiciously fine for me and is still in active development.
The "Adobe Acrobat" brand apparently also has a web app for signing PDFs. This is like, the first web search result for "PDF signing".
I've also tried Inkscape import as vector and then reexport, which works fine for visually signing single pages. Just make sure you render the text to paths on import, instead of converting them to SVG text— And don't actually do this, because it's kinda dumb, so just use Xournal++ or the Adobe website instead, but there are options.
Granted, depending on how your experience with Xournal goes, these options are indeed not as convenient or easy as they should be.
No! This term refers to, like, three three different things already, all of which have largely been either practical failures or grifts. Prescriptivism is usually just pedantry, but HTML5 web apps aren't even on that inauspicious list.