Back already. But seeing "reason: overflow" in the response made me wonder if it was related to the recent php vulnerability, but probably just a coincidence.
Might need to be careful: there's actually a URL-safe variant of base64 [0] that might be better, although the problematic + and / characters are probably not actually problematic within a fragment (+ only means space within the query, and / only means folder within a path and if a server wants it to) in which case standard base64 could be fine.
The example with the coffee bean background image already uses base64 for the image data, so I guess that would get double-encoded.
Not unlike how in the trades, a tee is T-shaped, a wye is Y-shaped, a delta is Δ-shaped. Spelled-out letters aren't always geometric metaphors, but it's a thing.
Then you've got the first syllable of Ω (omega) being a homophone of Ohm, for what that's worth. From there we have ℧ (mho) for conductance... It's all quite clever. But I digress; I'll get back to emceeing and deejaying, cueing these elpees after a quick pee, okay?
I should only have to pay 1/3 of what it adds to my bill, given that it's 1/3 as efficient as a heat pump. And that coefficient is to be adjusted as outside temp changes (assuming air source heat pump; water source would have a stable COP).
Easier said than done, but if you water-cool the GPU just upstream of your domestic water heater, it wouldn't be a bad thing. Perhaps using coolant and a counterflow heat exchanger, rather than the potable water, but the point stands. Would just need a secondary tank as a buffer (able to soak up heat from the GPU at all times, even when there's no demand for hot water) which then flushes in when demand exists.
"repeated use" seems to be doing the mitigation work here, though it does seem unusual that someone offended by the repetition would be unoffended by a one-off.
So long as the "getting" doesn't consist of circumventing something that is ostensibly a security mechanism, such as a URL that had never been presented to you by the server but is fairly easily guessed.
In a place where recording audio requires consent from all parties, I don't think it matters whether "all the processing is on-device" given that the law was probably written with tape recorders in mind. If I buy a device that can record audio, and place it in my home where unsuspecting guests are recorded by it, whether that recording is transmitted to the manufacturer or stays within my home seems irrelevant.
On the one hand, I wouldn't expect too many variations here (the vast majority of devices probably use 48 kHz and 24-bit output, a few use 44.1 kHz and/or 16-bit, etc.) but just like DPR and all the other properties with a very small set of popular values in practice, you only need a bit or two from each measurement to eventually have a high quality fingerprint.
This is a huge stretch, but if this problem exists in not only the PC versions of Chrome/Firefox but also the Android/iOS versions, then theoretically the app store reviewers could flag the browsers for facilitating this behavior against app store guidelines. In practice, apps of such caliber as popular browsers might be a bit above such reviewers' pay grade, so to speak.
Does anyone else get tripped up by the word "avoid" being positioned to apply to each item in the series, but then logically it must only apply to some (the first and second out of 3) items?
No, I've never seen Google Photos reflected in any Google Drive interface (web, OS integration, etc.) which on the one hand makes sense (think of Google Photos more like a database-driven black box app than a hierarchical filesystem) but on the other hand Google Drive does show gdocs, gsheets, etc. (which is also sort of a black box app, as the "files" seen in GDrive are merely lightweight stubs).
Only in storage quota views do Photos and Drive (and Gmail, etc.) commingle.
> the web applications like Google Photos are annoying but they take away all of this
They minimize it but don't take it away. A content creator must personally place their creation into multiple storage solutions, regardless of whether those solutions are cloud apps or local disks or anything else. In a world where disk failure is the only failure mode, sure, you can outsource the work of disk redundancy to a company, but it's not. The person you outsource to could decide to deny you access! Losing your cloud account (credential theft, alleged ToS violation, bankruptcy, etc.) is also a very real failure mode, albeit far less frequent than disk issues I suppose.
Your 4th hypothesis is equivalent, not "other," to mine. But I agree that it could be anything you mentioned, as all of them have crossed my mind as possible reasons why I experience "verifying you are human" and "find the motorcycles / busses / traffic lights" more often on my residential ISP than on my cellular or work ISPs, and the unknown botnet/exit node seems most probable (by far) when considering my own traffic. I never have the 403 problem discussed here, luckily.
Perhaps the bad behavior is failure to remove a compromised (botnet) device on your network that has been attacking one or more sites that use a popular security solution.
"Broken link" is not an accurate way to describe this situation.
When the Pandora music service launched, I remember reading about how it worked (predicting what you might like next) and it explained how they don't need to know anything about the songs at all (such as genre, tempo, instrumentation, place of origin, year of release, language, etc.) to predict what else you'll like. They simply identify other users with a similar history to you, and deliver to you some of the stuff that those other users had listened to that you hadn't listened to yet. If you abandon a song (suggesting that you don't like it much) then you become a bit less associated with the users who play that song a lot.
I just had this happen, and this HN post was the first result when searching "what is discover.aigc" on google. The specific Discover Feed entry that led me to see this domain (within an ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED error) would've been (if the link actually worked) an Allrecipes article entitled "Over 12,000 pounds of bacon recalled" which, in my case is not not some shock-value nonsense (like I assume is the case for OP's experience) because there is, indeed, this Allrecipes article [0] along with this .gov article [1].
> just read an extra second [...] accidentally trigger watchdogs
Well, this seems to touch heavily on the concern: if your job normally takes 0.1s and costs $100, it could accidentally be considered to have taken 1.1s and therefore cost $1100. This is quite contrived, but if you consider that some people put very infrequent cron jobs at the top of the hour (which isn't typically the best idea, but I digress) and it might start just ahead of what the billing system considers to be the top of the hour, theoretically there's something to this concern.
Yes, but a mitigation suggestion like "keep using it, except don't do X specific sequence" (for example, send to a Yahoo address via the Reply button, or whatever the case may be) could be helpful as well, since it seems that bad actors (and/or good actors spilling the beans) will figure it out sooner than later anyway.
...which makes it seem like perhaps the attack surface is limited to scenarios involving a Yahoo/Sonic address (assuming that Apple only sends X-Sonic-* headers when talking to those providers that want to see it), which might be a small percentage of users.
When you're already going 10 mph and you're about to add another 10 mph, you can only "call that zero" (i.e., go from 0 mph to 10 mph again) if your point of reference (i.e., the ground) also begins moving with you at that point. Since the ground is stationary, you're definitely about to increase from 10 mph to 20 mph relative to the ground, not from 0 mph to 10 mph, and that's harder to do. But if you're on a treadmill that was stationary for the first change, and then suddenly starts moving at 10 mph right before the second change without affecting your speed relative to the ground, then you can "call that zero" and you'll be able to add another 10 mph (ending up at 10 mph relative to the treadmill and 20 mph relative to the ground) with the same ease as the first go.
That's a good question, and I suppose the mgh formula isn't a suitable answer, so my answer would be something like: if you lift an object to some height, and then you repeat that action (lifting it from there to twice the height), you've done twice the work, and doing twice the work requires twice the caloric intake.
Brilliant. For those wanting more numbers [0], the ball on the 10ft ladder hits the ground at (I'll stick with imperial units) 17.296 MPH, the ball on the 20ft ladder hits the ground at 24.46 MPH or 41.42% faster, and the ball on the 40ft ladder hits the ground at 34.59 MPH or 100% faster.
I'll admit, many maneuvers can be described as cutting someone off. One so crazy that it would likely cause a collision should never be performed, but I was talking about the low-speed "bumper to bumper traffic" scenario common in lanes dedicated to making a left turn: the reason the gaps are too small for a non-cutoff lane change is a direct consequence of the low speeds involved, say 0-10mph. Imagine cars are nearly stopped for a red light, with gaps varying between 0.2 car length and 0.5 car length (this is much tighter than other parts of the US where gaps while stopped for a red light are typically 1-3 car lengths). I would line the nose of my car to the very front of the 0.5 gap (taking the majority of the risk), signal, cross the lane line within a flash or two, forcing the gap to expand to just over the length of my car, all at just a few mph. This is the type of cutting off I was referring to. And the driver who was cut off has no opportunity to fight; they would if I signaled too early!