it wouldnt make LEOs very happy.
its almost neccesary, to have rear windows, in order to view furtive movements of occupants, and profile suspicious behavior, justify acting under probable cause, and make a traffic stop that, after a few assertions, converts into a search.
[Doctor Stan dinghere, as a patient i have no trust or confidence regarding the security and integrity of my personal information in regards to AI scribing.
for this reason i will scribe for you, as that is the most accurate account of what i intend to communicate with you.
i will refrain from verbal communication and will provide on the spot written communication with respect to health care interaction. ]
i have a farmall hand cranked tractor, going on 90 years old, so far its been rubber parts, and clutch pads.
as far as auto mation goes, thats how implements used to work. it was a tracter/thresher/combine. then a bale counter is slapped on then maybe row sighting or guidance, etc.
if your really snazzy, the implement is actually mapping the soil for moisture, or rough composistion and holding data to use in reformulating or notating your current cultural plans, i.e. supplemental spot feeding and irrigation.
I still got a farmall 230, super easy to fix and maintain and works perfect for my small bit of land. An electric starter addon is really nice for winter starts though instead of killing your arm.
While I’m not at all surprised that they’re still running, I am a little surprised at how many Farm-all owners are on HN. Farm-all H owner checking in :)
And how many acres are you farming on it? Today's world of agriculture is much higher tech-based (for many good reasons, primarily yield) than back in the horse and buggy days of farming.
I know of a forklift that's pushing 80 and still used in a lumber yard (i.e. a material handling centric workplace)
Other than ~30min it takes to teach an employee to drive manual it doesn't do anything worse than the modern ones it works alongside and it does a handful of minor things much better by virtue of predating OSHA.
Wasn't designed with the assumption that when someone gets hurt lawsuits and fines could/would fly and so there's a lot less of the manufacturer covering it's ass in the design.
There's nothing to keep you from putting it on two wheels and the transition from on the ground to off the ground is pretty graceful and operator friendly whereas the newer lifts rely on a pressure release valve to keep them from lifting that much and (presumably) because they were always expected to be far from ragged edge their weight distribution is not really proper for that. The counterweight is substantially taller so how hard it pushes down is reduces more quickly as the lift comes up so it lifts tire further (and is more likely to dump the load or go over). This also means the old lift has a way lower ass pucker factor when doing stuff at max height. The real nuisance is when braking though. Yeah you "shouldn't" brake with the load up but operators who get good will raise the load at speed as they are coming in to put a pallet of stuff on top of another pallet of stuff and then when they brake it can get sketchy. The new lifts do corner much better unloaded though so I guess you could be much faster zipping through a warehouse on a new lift (but what workplace would permit that? And top speeds are about the same so there's no benefit in a big outdoor workplace like say an airport or shipyard).
There's no seat switch or other safety interlocks so you aren't putting a ton of wear on it if you're constantly getting out to fiddle with stuff. This also means you can do "unsafe" things like stand beside it and wrangle something and just reach in and make the mast go up and down. While in a textbook world this is "bad" and you "should only pick pallets" and "everything should be strapped to the pallet" in the real world you make all that back and more because it means you can use the forklift as a glorified engine hoist/shop crane without a helper. Hook and chain operations are made much safer/more reliable by this too since the operator can be sure things are good and is not tempted to half ass it to save the time of getting back out. Sure you could always add a helper but that's dangerous too because one person doing stuff near equipment and one person running equipment opens the door to miscommunication related injury that can't really happen among one person.
I'm sure "at scale" the new lift is safer, but safer for who? In what operating context? How big is the difference?
the data from CDC agrees with you, and agrees that a firearm is most common method.
but also indicates age correlate with freq of suicde by firearm.
guess who the least frequent group is, kids.
now that might fly in the face of stats, but suicide is an "intentional" thing.
[that rides on the idea that you are competent to form intent when suicidal]
so yes if you keep your guns secure, and gun proof your kids to mitigate accidents that should improve things, for kids.
however take at least as much care for your grandparents, they are apparently at extreme risk, of forming intent and, acting especially grandpa.
The point of the second part is that grandpa locking up his gun reduces his risk of suicide. Anything that adds a "checkpoint" that activates even some small other part of the brain seems to help.
yeah you got it, the reasons why it seems to be the better choice are somewhat glum. terminal illness with no quick relief in sight, an estate now the best contribution to be made vs impending medical expenses.
it might work for spur of the moment almost reflex decisions, but its a different story when the choice is made over a few years, reinforced by physical reasons.
> however take at least as much care for your grandparents, they are apparently at extreme risk, of forming intent and, acting especially grandpa.
What if allowing suicide is taking care of one's grandparents? After all, if I was diagnosed with a awful condition like Alzheimer's, ALS, etc.. I am absolutely going out that way once I start having more bad days than good days.
That’s why we have laws protecting end of life rights in Oregon - which are much preferred over millions of firearms in the hands of ‘rEsPoNsIbLe gun oWnErS’, impulsive and impaired decision making, and someone walking into a traumatic mess coming back home.
Most of the rest of states use hospice as a way to kill people with morphine. Basically they give the patient as much as they want, and usually stops their heart.
Naturally, medically assisted suicide is illegal in most states. But its wink wink nudge nudge "pain management".
I hear you - as usual, people will do what they need to do in the way they can.
Personally, I wish we collectively recognized that this ‘pain management’ is a disservice to all dealing with those situations, much like handing out medical marihuana cards to recreational users was for actual patients, or women addressing family planning issues in some less than acceptable settings. Alas…
Yeah. We focus so much on suicide without sorting out whether it's temporary despair or declining health where there is no good answer.
We should be trying to help/prevent the former, for the latter I think we should only be trying to be sure they're not the former. But the data always lumps them and I get very suspicious when data lumps two very different cases.
there is no use for an automated system that "argues" with your commands.
if i ask it to advise me, thats one thing, but if i command it to perform, nothing short of obedience will suffice.
I just explained the use I have for it. If you think that my use case is wrong or misunderstood in some way, I'd love to hear it. If your response is just "no", I guess I'm not sure how to engage with that.
encryption is not ever to be considered impossible to break.
every encryption scheme has at least one way to be decrypted.
fidelity of information is one use of encryption, if you apply the solution and get garbage, something is wrong, somewhere.
occultation of information is another use, that is commonly abused by extending undue trust. under the proviso that encryption will eventually be broken, you cant trust encryption to keep a secret forever, but you can keep it secret, for long enough that it is no longer applicible to an attack,or slightly askew usecase, thus aggressive rotation of keys becomes desirable
> encryption is not ever to be considered impossible to break
One-time pads [0] are actually impossible to break, but they're pretty tricky to use: you must never ever reuse them, they must be truely random, and you need some way to share them between both parties (which isn't that easy since they need to be at least as large as all the data that you ever want to transmit).
not trying to be obtuse, but there is at least one solution, the one used to decrypt.
if you know something about the content e.g. it is for russians, or americans.
you can use a frequency analysis to identify vowels. that goes for a simple substitution cypher that is relying on low frequency of usage[one time use] and does not keep it brief.
when you further substitute numbers for words, you gain more room for verbosity.
if you have high stakes, your message in the clear, should only be useful for a limited time, at the point that it is no longer actionable.
im very familiar with one time pads random, and keyed.
they are a little simple, you can use a triaxial scheme, or a tensor like scheme, for more leg room and more complexity.
depending on what you are doing it may be necessary, to not carry any pads, but to have access at some point, to agreed upon keys, in order to generate a pad on the spot. or even work in your head, if you have skill. e.g. jackdwlovemybigsphnxfqurtz as a weak example.
> not trying to be obtuse, but there is at least one solution, the one used to decrypt
Right, which is why I didn't quote that part :)
> you can use a frequency analysis to identify vowels.
That will help in many cases, but not against a properly-used one-time-pad.
> but to have access at some point, to agreed upon keys, in order to generate a pad on the spot
That's not really a one-time pad then, that's just a stream cipher. Which do work better than one-time pads in the vast majority of cases, aside from not being "perfectly" secure.
I don't think you understand the point of the OTP and why it can't be brute forced: for any possible output, there is a corresponding one-time key. So you have no way to tell if the key you have come up with is correct, you can 'decrypt' an OTP ciphertext into a coherent sentence saying whatever you want in any language you want (the only constraint being maximum length), and bruteforcing will just give you all of them.
oh i get it, the frequency of use is what allows frequency analysis.
use a pad once then rotate to a new pad. [effectively re-key the encryption]
avoid using characters in high frequency [vowels, language specific phonemes]
use alternate misspellings, intentional typos.
keep the message very brief, the longer the message the more effective frequency analysis becomes.
try to avoid corelative events.
if every time a cypher that looks like [abc] is captured, somthing, is bombed, or major troop movements occur, you have an idea what the message is about, giving a bit more leverage.
also standard OTP pads use 2 axis, a tensor matrix is a better OTP.
reply