Observer here doesn't mean the same as the layman meaning. It's anything that interacts with the system while it's developing.
Interestingly, it actually can be used for a presence detector, at least in a sense. You can use it to transfer cryptographic information. If no-one is listening in, about half your sent numbers are wrong, but you can agree on what ones. However, if someone is listening in, all your data gets randomised.
They actually now use this system to transfer information between banks. They send a random stream of 0s and 1s over a fibre optic cable. They then send (semi publicly) which bits made it properly. If someone spliced into the fibre, they would get the encryption data, but the target bank would not! They know instantly that something is wrong.
For those confused, it's worth noting the difference between observed as a layman concept and as a quantum mechanical one.
In QM, to observed is to couple the observer to the "system" being observed. Think of it like "observing" your neighbour, over a fence using a BB gun. When you hit flesh, you know where your neighbour is. Unfortunately, the system has now been fundamentally changed. In a classical system, you could turn down the power, until your neighbour doesn't notice the hits. Unfortunately, QM imposes fundamental limits on your measurements (heisenburg and his uncertainty principal). In order to observe your neighbour accurately, you need to hit them hard enough that the will also feel it and react differently.
QM behaves in a similar way. Initially, the system is just a single particle, and is not very restrained. This allows it to behave in a very wave like manner. When you observe it, the system now includes the whole observation system, as this coupling propagates, more and more atoms etc get linked. The various restraints cause an effect called decoherence. The system behaves ever more like a classical physical system.
In short, a quantum mechanical "observer" is less sneaky watching, and more hosing down with a machine gun and watching the ricochets.
Ear wounds bleed spectacularly. They are also quite easy to fix cleanly, with appropriate care. A small wound would create plenty of blood, but be effectively invisible after a bit of work from a plastic surgeon.
Let's face it, which is more likely? A shooter just missed, or Trump had the coordination to play act, without it looking like a 5 year old's "my first magic act", and then not brag about it?
Various events around the universe occur on human timescales. If time stopped for use, we would effectively skip ahead on the view of them.
I actually think we could reliably catch 1 second time stops. Scientists monitor various pulsars. They spin multiple times a second, throwing off radio wave pulses. If all of them suddenly went out of sync with our clocks, it would definitely be noticed. It might take several, however, to prove it wasn't a weird hardware glitch.
Theories can be a stepping stone to other theories. Until we explore those chains, we don't know if there is anything useful at the end.
E.g. initially, lasers were a solution looking for a problem. An interesting quirk possible due to some interesting bit of physics.
Maths explores idea spaces. Much of that is purely of interest to other mathematicians. However, it sometimes intersects with areas of interest to other scientists, at which point it becomes extremely useful.
This also massively effects the risk/reward balance. Ultimately, a woman's ability to have children is limited by her biology. The limit on men is FAR higher.
For women, once they hit the resource requirements to support 2 dozen children, there was relatively little real gain. A successful man could (in theory) have hundreds of children. Genghis khan being the most egregious example. Taking large risks for large gains makes sense for men, in a way that just doesn't for women.
Women were functionally disabled by having children, spending a significant amount of time either pregnant, or breastfeeding. This makes them the natural parent to focus on raising children. Also, in nature, losing 1 parent has a relatively minor drop in survival chances compared to losing 2.
This ends up with men being more "disposable" than women. If 1 group needs to flee with the children, while the other holds off an attack, it's most sensible for the men to defend. The women would provide a final line of defence.
The message wouldn't be to Putin directly. It would be to those both in his power base, or capable of disrupting it.
The goal would be to push Russians to the point they deal with Putin internally, and/or put putin in a position where he needs to end the war to stabilise his own position. It's all about making the right people feel the effects.
Oh, and as a European, I think the risk is acceptable. If Putin struck at a NATO country, the results would likely be swift and short. The only unknown would be Russian nukes, and even those are far more of an unknown than most people think.
I flew on an a380 recently. They actually used zoned boarding! The number of people who didn't seem to get that they wouldn't be allowed to board till their zone came up was amusing.
The key is that it can be both. Pushing the "your kids are screwed" message doesn't seem to be working. If hyping up Americans with patriotic messages gets them moving, I don't see that as a bad thing.
Pay attention to how laye you generally are. I used to be chronically late. I began to notice I was generally about 20-30 minutes behind. I could often make up some of that, but it was rushed.
The fix was quite simple, I trained myself to add 30 minutes "faffing time" to any estimate or leave time. I have an "aim to leave" and "MUST leave" time. I generally leave about 10-15 minutes 'late', but due to the buffer, I have 15-20 minutes leeway still to deal with things like extra traffic.
There's a difference between fear and respect. A child should NEVER fear the adult providing their care.
I would actually wager decent money that many of those little shits have been smacked around quite a lot. They learn to react how they were taught by demonstration. If mistakes are met with violence and aggression, then they learn to do the same to others.
I know a teacher who (unofficially) specialises in kids like those. They are hell on a new teacher. However, once they realise that they are not met with aggression, the veneer cracks. The young scared child realises that there is an adult they both cares and shouldn't be feared. Very soon, just the idea that they might disappoint her is a far better motivator than any punishment could be.
Even if you don't use it as a password manager, bitwarden has an excellent pass phrase generator. The only annoyance is when I run into maximum password lengths at times.
I tend to prefer pass phrases, they are a lot easier to type and speak, if required. Mine regularly blow past 20 characters.
As for salting, that only defends against rainbow table attacks. The salt needs to be stored along with the hash. That is find for most accounts, but once you're in banking territory, that's a bad bet.
You also can't assume you have no vulnerabilities. If someone gets your database, you can't defend against brute force attacks.
Lastly, if you are doing passwords properly, you shouldn't care much about length. There are a few dos attacks to worry about, but a 512 char limit will stop those, and not limit any sane password.
If a gang is using children to deal drugs, then it's an unfortunate, but necessary, thing.
A while back, gangs realised that the police and courts will go easy on teenagers. Teenagers are also notoriously easy to manipulate. This makes them the perfect cover and scape goats for a gang.
The real question is why blacks are being targeted. Is it the police being racist, or are the gangs targeting them, and so the police follow?
That's also my pet peave with situations like this.
Are they searching black people (and so racist)?
Are they searching poor people (and so classist)?
Are they searching based on evidence (fair)?
All could reach the same result, but the solution is vastly different.
Unfortunately, 1 points to a simple problem, with someone to blame. The other 2 are complex social problems that require complex solutions and don't have a simple bogeyman to blame.
Observer here doesn't mean the same as the layman meaning. It's anything that interacts with the system while it's developing.
Interestingly, it actually can be used for a presence detector, at least in a sense. You can use it to transfer cryptographic information. If no-one is listening in, about half your sent numbers are wrong, but you can agree on what ones. However, if someone is listening in, all your data gets randomised.
They actually now use this system to transfer information between banks. They send a random stream of 0s and 1s over a fibre optic cable. They then send (semi publicly) which bits made it properly. If someone spliced into the fibre, they would get the encryption data, but the target bank would not! They know instantly that something is wrong.