For those who haven't watch 'Star Trek Into Darkness' in awhile, go watch it again and note how the guy walks into the ultra secure facility and plugs in Khan's thumb-drive. That's how it goes down when shit gets real.
Just for your benefit / future reference, the word “specially” refers to a special case, as in “John was specially selected to carry out the ceremony.” The word “especially” however, refers to something that exceeds the norm, as in “It was especially ironic that I used the word incorrectly while correcting someone else.”
What a refreshing response. Even though I can appreciate the value that monetizing a product has for the users of that product (updates and continued support), it’s nice to be reminded that we don’t have to monetize every project we engage with. Believe it or not, sometimes people just want to give back. Thanks for your efforts. That being said, when a project becomes popular enough that people are all but throwing money at you, don’t be afraid to do them a favor and provide paid support if you are so inclined.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been absolutely smoked in 5k races by people who were 40+. Instead of offending those people by implying they don’t have the stamina to keep up, just say no. People respect “no.” No one respects disingenuous language.
Speaking from experience (lived in Alaska for over 20 years), I would suggest investing in an elliptical. A lot of people make the mistake of slacking on their cardio because lifting gets them to where they want to be physically. IMO you shouldn’t view cardio as exercise for your body, but as relief for your mind. Keep lifting and eating right, but make sure you get in some vigorous cardio (sweat and make yourself run out of breath). I would suggest doing your cardio in the morning before you start your day. When you get to the point where you’re feeling good about yourself, invest in some nice clothes and go show off a little! The attention might help distract you.
This is in response to this comment, as well as the parent: Minimize your trust in all-in-one authentication services. A password manager is reasonable (still makes me nervous), because it makes it simple to have a different complex password for every account. But taking Persona for instance, it claims "free yourself from password management". Don't do that. When you free yourself from managing your security, you are not secure. It really is as simple as that. Security takes diligence. One could even say that security is diligence. The harder you make it for yourself, the more secure you are.
Regarding the possibility of locking yourself out of your accounts, one suggestion that I have is to have one or more primary accounts that you use to recover all of you less critical accounts, and keep the device used for authenticating to those at home, preferable in a safe. Do not use this device for your normal 2FA - only use it as 2fa and recovery for the primary recovery accounts.
For the remaining accounts, use a separate device that you carry around with you. This way when you eventually lose access to something, you'll have a better chance of getting it back. In other words, a lost phone wont necessarily turn into a catastrophe because you've lost your only means of 2fa.
This is wrong. Your email provider is already a SPOF for your security, since anyone who owns your email de facto owns all your accounts. All you're doing is removing another link from the security chain, i.e. the service authentication method.
Essentially, you're replacing two (or a thousand) things someone can break into with one thing someone can break into. That's much easier to secure.
This is all well and good for a tech savvy user. But for the user who "instead of properly setting up their authenticator app, they brilliantly used one of the ten backup codes to finish their 2FA setup (and didn’t even store the rest), thus locking themselves out of their account immediately.", this will all be too complex for them.
We need a solution that is actually usable by the masses that maintains a reasonable level of security.
Super weird food for thought, but I used to think about the universe a lot as a kid, and back then we were under the assumption that the expansion of the universe was slowing. At some point that viewpoint changed and we now believe it is accelerating, hence the emergence of so called dark matter. Anyway, this led me to envision a fourth dimension, a sphere. Imagine that our universe began at any arbitrary point on the inside of this sphere, and then orient the sphere so that we are at the bottom (like a penny inside of an inflated balloon). Now imagine (don’t believe, just imagine) that our universe is expanding at a constant rate. As we approach the equator of this sphere, the area that we must cover grows larger, but once we pass the equator it begins to grow smaller. And so what might appear to us as slowing down and speeding up could just be the shape of space changing, and not the speed of expansion. Again, just food for thought.
This is not a minor correction simply because they both contain the word "dark". It would have been slightly more correct to confuse the terms dark matter and dark chocolate. Dark energy is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Correction noted and accepted. Thanks. In this particular thought experiment, dark energy (not dark matter as originally stated) has been replaced by the shape of space, and due to our inability to directly detect such extra-dimensional curvature we have defined this energy as a placeholder (which would not exist if this experiment proved to be true).
I used to be a bit interested in astrophysics, so I can't vouch 100% for this being accurate, but it's my understanding:
The universe isn't the penny, it's the balloon. Physicists believe we are living on the surface of a hypersphere. One important consequence of this idea is that the big bang didn't occur at a specific point in our 3D space, but at the center of the sphere.
Furthermore, the concept of a balloon expanding vs. deflating is a bit of a misconception. The argument used to be that whether or not the balloon is expanding, depending on the rate of the expansion, gravity could eventually win out and cause the matter to collapse back together (big crunch scenario). The problem with that theory is that we now know that galaxies are speeding away from us at a growing speed that (not sure the exact details, probably based on red shift in light from nearby galaxies). So the idea of gravity winning out was not based on evidence, just one of a number of possibilities, but the evidence proved it wrong beyond a doubt.
The analogy of an inflating balloon is a useful one because, as in the universe, an observer at any given position on the surface of the balloon sees all other points receding from them. This leads to the illusion that any observer's position is the 'center' of the expansion, but there is actually no center on the surface of the balloon, just as there is no unique origin point for the expansion of space in the universe.
The analogy isn't perfect though. I don't think it's quite right that cosmologists believe we are living on the surface of an expanding hypersphere; that would imply that the expansion of the universe had a real spatial center somewhere in a large extra dimension, just as the inflating surface of a balloon has a real spatial center in the balloon's three dimensional interior, inaccessible to observers that can only probe the surface.
That the universe has a real, albeit extra-dimensional spatial center isn't a mainstream idea, but there are theorists exploring the possibility that the universe exists on the surface of a brane in a higher dimensional 'bulk', and that the big bang resulted from a collision between branes in that higher dimensional space [1].
There might be some utility in thinking of the universe as an inflating hypersphere whose radius corresponds to time, rather than to an additional spatial dimension. In that analogy, the center of the hypersphere (or balloon) would represent a point in time, rather than a point in higher-dimensional space. The surface of the hypersphere (corresponding to the space of our universe) would appear to expand the further an observer was from the temporal 'center', which would be equivalent to the big bang. There is a consensus among cosmologists that the big bang appears to be a special point in time, if not in space.
Think of 4 dimensional spacetime as an oddly-shaped rectangle, which is much wider at one end than another. Maybe more like a pyramid with the top bit missing. All of matter and energy started as an explosion at the narrow end, and is traveling across towards the much broader end. The expansion of the universe is merely the expansion of the barrel, and the dark energy spreading apart the universe is really the slight trajectory differences caused by the shape of the charge that started the process.
To me, it's like 3d canon shot flying down a 4d barrel.
Or trace the worldlines of these particles. Any given point in time represents a 3d slice of the 4d pyramid-rectangle.
That’s a really awesome thought experiment! I got a related idea during undergrad. What if the apparent symmetry between the three special and one temporal dimensions was at one point complete? Ie time could at one point be swapped out with any of the other three dimensions. But somehow that symmetry collapsed- and maybe it’s collapse was the result or creation of mass-energy. I imagine a hypercube being “pulled down” into a confined region. But the confinement “pushed” the two directions of time into the one direction and mass-energy.
Wouldn't this result in relative acceleration which correlates to the angle of the body being observed relative to the viewer? Anything aligbed directly between the viewer and a pole would move at a constant speed while speeds would appear to increase as you approach perpendicular? I can't imagine how this would play out in a 3d projection of a 4d surface however.
As someone who was born as part of the race and gender being disparaged in the above comments, maybe I should be thankful. Yes, those comments were slightly hurtful, but mostly it was just really weird feeling hatred from another person based on the color of my skin and gender. I haven’t had a chance to feel that very often, and I honestly think the exercise was meaningful. Thanks for putting me in that position to know how much it hurts when people blindly hate based on race and gender. It might help me see things differently in the future (shrug). That being said, I would never disparage another race in the way that you just did. Way to keep it classy.
