I feel in the minority, but took the ad as if it was compressing all those things into the iPad, not “destroying” them. Maybe it’s a glass half full kind of thing.
I think that was the intent of the ad, indeed. However, the fact that destruction was used is disrespectful to those items nevertheless. After all, the items were produced from metals unsustainably extracted from the earth, and are a gift to us borne from the pain of the planet.
It is the same concept as if you were to destroy a gift given to you by a friend. Of course, the point beyond that is that the use of destruction is reflective of the reality of modern "civilization" and goes beyond the point of the ad.
>However, the fact that destruction was used is disrespectful to those items nevertheless. After all, the items were produced from metals unsustainably extracted from the earth, and are a gift to us borne from the pain of the planet.
Nobody complained when Christopher Nolan crashed a Boeing 747 into a building and then blew it up, all for a movie. Arguably that's worse than whatever was destroyed in Apple's ad. What's the reason for the discrepancy?
Do you really believe this? If so, you must really hate everything about the modern world. You’d also be super shocked to learn how the machine you’re typing these messages on came to be.
I've found that some people have great zigbee experiences and terrible z-wave and just as many are the opposite. I chalk it up to individual environments etc. Go with what works best from you.
I've done this as well, but I moved to 500kg load cells on the bed legs for reliability.
2 Load cells one on each back leg of the bed. Upside too is I've been able to discern things like, sitting on the edge of the bed to put on shoes etc based on the weights.
Esphome, load cell, and hx711 chip for the load cell comes out to about $40-$50 each leg.
You could get away with using just two cheaper 50kg load cells with some tinkering (i.e. a bracket and screw to send the just right fraction of the load to the cell, on just two legs).
My feeling would be this does violate the law. The problem is new technology must often go through courts to actually establish the law. So it seems that while the NYPD could decide it’s a no-go, their worse case is to do it, get sued and then let a judge make the call.
To that point, when I do the picture captcha (Select the crosswalks type question), I always click a square I know is not valid and then de-select it. Adds some "human-ness" to the interaction and I never get a 2nd challenge that way. Will that be the future? Look for behavior that is too perfect?
I feel like Captcha already takes into account of how quickly I select the pictures already. If I spend the time to get it perfect, I end up with more challenges than if I just select quickly based on my instincts.
If you assume that most humans spend the minimum effort possible on their captchas, your gut response is also more in line with other responses than your well thought-out response. Even a matching based on the selected squares would pick up on this.
It’s unclear to me who is the registrant in this scenario.
If blue sky then you don’t own anything and there is no portability.
If you are the registrant that’s great but namecheap is going to need contact information that’s verifiable which may turn people off who would like a bit more separation on their social profiles. I also wonder does blue sky see that registrant data? Can’t say I like that very much.
It works in a similar way that lets encrypt DNS challenge works. They just partnered with Namecheap to make the process simple because asking people to buy a domain and setup TXT records is still a fairly complicated and technical process. Apple does the same with iCloud emails and Cloudflare domains.
This is interesting, however the vast majority of registries require connecting from a known ip, using a specific cert chain and in some instances their own ca. Turns out when you don’t follow industry practices in one way you don’t do much else right either
This is hyperbole. You typically can't sue (and win) against the maker of an item used in a crime just because they manufactured it.
There is usually some extenuating circumstance when these cases do prevail. For instance one manufacturer was found to have such incendiary marketing around their assault rifle it had risen to the level of a "call to arms". So typically it has to be more than "We are the manufacturer"
> For instance one manufacturer was found to have such incendiary marketing around their assault rifle it had risen to the level of a "call to arms".
Which case? Corporations have free speech rights. They have artistic license to advertise their product as they see fit. I don't see how that's a "call to arms" anymore than military movies are.
