* The simulation shall invoke feelings of paranoia and the sense of communication with a higher intelligence during user's formative years via consumption of psychotropic substances, faithfully re-creating the sensations of schizophrenia.
* The simulation will slowly reveal increasingly clear contact with a higher intelligence as adulthood sets in, throughout which the enigma of the user's role in the outcome of the simulated world will morph into intrinsic understanding of, and harmony with, the simulated world. This marks the transition away from purely schizophrenic perceptions to grandiose delusions that manifest in a progressively convincing fashion.
the ideal CAD operator has a series of personalized single key shortcuts on their left hand.
I challenge you to put your top ten commands on single key or double-same key (e.g. zz) shortcuts on the left side of the keyboard. Your CAD skills will speed up significantly once these become muscle memory.
It's in the article. It was a criminal investigation. This is no different than subpoenaing phone records or financial records. They had a very narrow target and a specific objective well within their purview and serving the public interest. The subpoena was withdrawn because they caught the guy.
No: they wanted to identify one sex offender, probably because they knew he read this article somehow.
They did not care who read the article itself which was benign.
They wanted to create a precedent to make their job easier, not realizing maybe people care less abt solving crimes than making it forever possible to track who reads what.
Most/all of those methods have (often much) greater friction than cryptocurrency. I'd guess that, if cryptocurrency were banned domestically, the payouts would significantly decrease, and probably reduce the frequency of these attacks.
But, even then, such a ban would probably have a negative effect on cybersecurity progress, since these incidents are motivating fundamental changes to cybersecurity awareness, policies, procedures, and technology.
The main problem is the malware that makes you lost access to your data.
(Pseudo-)anonymous payment (BTC is not fully anonymous) that facilitates the payment is just a side effect.
Backup and threat management directly address the main problem. Banning crypto just like you say, deter the payout potential, but it leaves the malware as is.
It's pretty funny when we talk ransomware payment in term of friction—as if we are talking about new payment method user which user will be inconvenienced.
Criminals doing criminal transaction don't care about 'friction', they will grind through any obstacle to move the money.
Gift cards seem to be more stable than crypto (held value) and very anonymous (purchasable with cash, no-questions-asked). They do have the friction of limited amounts, the overhead of managing many cards, their acquisition without questions by employing many couriers, and liquidation.
Crypto has issues in purchasing, mixing, and liquidating.
PS: I wonder if anyone is using gift card networks for money-laundering? The answer is always "yes."
This question is a bit pointless. That all depends on how China behaves by then. For all we know they may not be interested in building power projection capabilities that go further than their own region.
Historical precedence from the Ming dynasty showed that even when they have a big fleet, they're not interested in colonizing territories. The Ming fleet only traded, not conquered. Look up Zhang He.
Historical evidence from the Qing dynasty showed that in the 18th century, Chinese mining settlers in Malaysia tried to submit themselves under the rule of the Qing, but the Qing emperor refused, saying China is big enough already. Lookup Lanfang Republic.
Historical precedence from the Republican era showed that the People's Republic has given up territory compared to the Republic. See all of outer Mongolia, which was ceded (and which Taiwan, a.k.a. the Republic, still formally claims).
Historical evidence from a few years ago shows that China's policy is non-interventionist. Lookup Yanis Varoufaski, former Greek minister: https://youtu.be/9tJatdtv4jQ
Lookup Gyude Moore, "China in Africa: an African perspective"
Where is the evidence that we can expect China to behave like the US?
History is littered with examples. But for China's ambitions, maybe it will depend on the nature of their alliances by then (2050 is their goal).
There's a complicated relationship with Russia vis a vis scientific collab in space, and now we're entering the openly militarized age of space. Russia's relations with China, meanwhile, are improving.
Besides, the nature of domination going forward, in any kinetic sense, won't involve nukes, bayonets, bow and arrow, or the like, except as backup offensive strats. Could involve, say, leaking a virus from a lab.
The nature of global domination may be far less violent than we've seen, historically, but certainly has the potential to be far more insidious.
I'd much rather do my part helping the West maintain their incumbent role. As for Snowdon/surv topics: everyone did it, everyone does it, espionage is the 2nd oldest profession.
May I ask if you support China's ongoing initiative to reclaim Taiwan? They seem to be willing to use force to do so.
Re Taiwan I think calling it an "ongoing initiative to reclaim Taiwan" is misrepresenting the situation. I think PRC would be happy to maintain status quo indefinitely, even allowing Taiwan to have strong informal ties with the world, as long as all parties don't try to break the One China Policy. The status quo has been hugely beneficial to both parties while still allowing de facto independence. By Korean standards, China is already reunified. In the late 80s or early 90s the PRC did offer One Country Two Systems with many negotiable options, but the KMT back then was too arrogant and shot that down, thinking PRC would collapse. Now that ship has sailed.
I'm hoping for a peaceful resolution. Whether that's reunification, or an acceptable form of independence, I'm fine with both. It wouldn't be that bad if China-Taiwan becomes like US-Canada: independent but at peace and with good relationships. Just... Stop fighting and hating on each other, for fscks sake.
I oppose any violent resolutions. But from my perspective, many parties involved in the matter seem to be hellbent on forcing a violent resolution.
Yeah but that's after years of escalations by DDP and US. Before DPP, we could even say that China-Taiwan relationships were at its peak. China's recent moves are primarily a response instead of a proactive move.
The DPP has done a lot of dubious things that raise tensions, all for political scoring, such as:
- blatantly lying about that they warned WHO about knowing about the Wuhan virus. They later published their email to the WHO... And their own email shows that they've been lying. :-(
- at the start of the Wuhan outbreak, they immediately banned all mask exports to China.
- they've banned TV and news outlets that have a pro-mainland stance.
- more recently, they've banned importing vaccines from China, even though they don't have alternatives. Even donations of western vaccines from mainland NGOs are rejected.
I mean, I understand the desire for independence. But surely you can advocate that without the need for immoral populist moves that harm not only the mainland government, but also the people, right? Lying about COVID and banning masks really pissed off a lot of mainland citizen. Banning mainland vaccines harms Taiwanese people. All this for scoring political points.
If you look at Tsai Ing Wen's Twitter, you will see a lot of mainland citizen mocking her. The article says the government has "fanned the flames of Chinese nationalism". But sorry, I can't agree with this. The article makes it seem as if Chinese people's thoughts are a wholly artificial construct created by the CCP. But Chinese nationalism existed before the CCP. Lots of people genuinely care about the Taiwan issue. There's a saying that if China becomes democratic, then it would have launched an invasion yesterday.
The article also makes it seem as if China has been strengthening its military with the primary goal of invading Taiwan. I also cannot agree with this. Its military strenghtening's main purpose is to defy foreign aggressions. One of the CCP's founding purpose, and its source of legitimacy among the people, is to end the era of foreign imperialism. China has suffered a lot, for 100 years, because it was weak and could not resist European and Japanese colonizers. Building a capable military is their version of "never again".
Military strengthing was accelerated due to Obama's Pivot to Asia. Around 2010,the US sent warships to the South China Sea, and instigated UNCLOS issues even though the US didn't ratify UNCLOS. Then China was like "so you want to play military games? Fine, have it your way". And now we have artificial islands in the South China Sea and aircraft carriers... https://original.antiwar.com/dave_decamp/2020/07/19/the-us-h...
As for the US again, they tried sending diplomats to Taiwan, which is like 1 step away from formal independence. They knew full well that doing this will trigger an aggressive response from China (and would have since 1949), but they still went ahead and did it. This still amazes me because it was the US in the 70s who co-created the One China Policy in the first place.
Like I said: multiple parties are hell-bent on forcing a violent resolution. For no concrete gain that benefits anybody.
I smoked for ten years. Took Chantix for a week about fifteen years ago, which increased the frequency and intensity of my suicidal ideations. I then quit for good, with help from the Carr book, about a year thereafter.
Quitting was horrible, but it got better. Now, the thought of smoking a cigarette is repulsive. Zero cravings, and the smell is highly offensive now.
I'm very thankful for Varenecline (aka Chantix/Champix); it's what got me to quit after many years of pack-a-day. I didn't even set a quit date when I started. That drug took away every tiny ounce of satisfaction I ever got from smoking. Every cigarette became a cigarette that did not give me what a cigarette is expected to provide. The best way I can describe what happened to me is that I felt like a non-smoker trying to smoke, and all I got was the scent and flavour of licking an ashtray with none of the brain-altering effects.
It's been over a year now, and I can't imagine going back. The only trigger I have is seeing someone else smoke, and even then it has never been more than a fleeting thought that dissipates within seconds. I know exactly what 2-3 puffs would do to me, and I have no interest in going back. I've never had the urge to buy a pack myself or to bum off someone. Smoking is now well into my past, and for that I am thankful.
I got the well-known "nightmares" from Verenecline, but I actually really enjoyed them. Those dreams were some of the most vivid and intense I've ever had the joy to experience. In fact, I still have the last 50 1mg pills leftover that I didn't need to use, and I've only kept them because I know I'll eventually use them just to revisit that kind of dream state. :)
For those in Europe, a similar medication is sold under the Tabex brand name. The active ingredient seems to be different (cytisine) but the effect is the same: no satisfaction from cigarettes, just the bad smell/taste plus some mild stimulation (at least I felt less sleepy in the first few days quitting with Tabex as opposed to cold turkey). I liked to visualize the effect of this drug as: binding to the same receptors in my brain as nicotine, robbing the dangerous molecule of it's power.
It still takes a tremendous amount of willpower to stay off the various forms of nicotine after the initial quitting. The pretense of having that first nicotine hit, seeking a consolation from life events, an excuse to make yourself feel better and all the other lies you'd be telling yourself are still very tempting (and exactly the reason I have been using the same pack of medication to __quit__ several times already.
Telling yourself there is no light switch in you, that you are stronger or better equipped than others, is a dangerous way to eventual relapse. Though for your own sake I really hope I am wrong.
Good sir, I regret to inform you that your assessment of my situation contains incorrect assertions based upon false premises, as I've made no such statement about my relative strength or equipment. I further regret to inform you that I've since been in the presence of smokers and cigarettes, through which no cravings arose.
Sir, I further regret to inform you that I've accidentally inhaled tobacco in recent years when being passed a (REDACTED BASED ON FEDERAL CANNABIS LAWS) that, unknown to me, had tobacco mixed in. I coughed, was disgusted, and had zero cravings for tobacco thereafter.
As such, there is no risk of relapse.
I do believe that my short stint consuming Chantix may have permanently rewired my brain's reaction to cigarettes.
