r00ty

That’s a tough one. But if they’re going to operate in a way where they don’t want Venezuelan authorities to know they’re there (I got the impression they were making a show of force so…) they do need to inform the atc of friendly countries operating nearby so they can ensure flight plans keep them apart.

But, I don’t know what (if any) procedures they have for this kind of thing. But to me it makes sense, you either close the nearby airspace (kinda makes it obvious something is going on), inform friendly atc so they can keep squawking and non squawking traffic apart. Neither just makes aviation extremely dangerous.

To the best of my knowledge the ads-b transponders operate with the same interface as previous transponders. That is they can be active, stand by or off. Commercial airliners should never turn them off in the air, but they do have the ability to.

For military aircraft this requirement is almost certainly only going to apply when in “friendly airspace” and at altitudes with commercial traffic. Especially when not on an operational mission.

For truly secretive missions they will likely get blanket clearances in friendly airspace to travel at specific altitudes so they can travel transponder off while avoiding the commercial traffic.

But I’m not an expert by any means.

Yep. I also valid concerns. But those seem to be their next steps. I just wondered if there would be degradation. You wouldn’t even be able to tell until it reached the destination.

Definitely interesting stuff.

This is for communication, not computation or even cryptography. The point in transferring it this way is so as to maintain the unseen property of the photon.

I think my question on all this would be whether this would ultimately cause problems in terms of data integrity.

Currently most amplifiers for digital information are going to capture the information in the light, probably strip off any modulation to get to the raw data. Then re-modulate that using a new emitter.

The advantages of doing this over just amplifying the original light signal are the same reason switches/routers are store and forward (or at least decode to binary and re-modulate). When you decode the data from the modulated signal and then reproduce it, you are removing any noise that was present and reproducing a clean signal again.

If you just amplify light (or electrical) signals “as-is”, then you generally add noise every time you do this reducing the SNR a small amount. After enough times the signal will become non-recoverable.

So I guess my question is, does the process also have the same issue of an ultimate limit in how often you can re-transmit the signal without degradation.

Pretty sure this was made clear in the article but… I’ll outline the little I know on the subject as a complete layman.

Currently we have been able to use quantum effects to create single runs of fibre that cannot be intercepted. That is, if the data is intercepted by any known means the receiver will be able to detect this.

The shortcoming of this method, is that of course when you need to amplify the signal, that’s generally a “store and forward” operation and thus would also break this system’s detection. You could I guess perform the same operation wherever it is amplified, but it’s then another point in which monitoring could happen. If you want 1 trusted sender, 1 trusted receiver and nothing in between, this is a problem.

What this article is saying, is they have found a way to amplify the information without ever “reading” it. Therefore keeping the data integrity showing as “unseen” (for want of a better word). As such this will allow “secure” (I guess?) fibre runs of greater distances in the future.

Now the article does go into some detail about how this works and why. But, for the basic aspect of why this is a good and useful thing. This is pretty much what you need to know.

This is the world most of us want to live in I would think.

He is not the one to deliver it. He doesn’t really want that. If he did, he wouldn’t want $1t let alone fight to get it. Let alone all the other vile shit he has done, and will do.

So far I’ve mostly avoided the whole “things that don’t need to be on the Internet” situation.

Non smart TV (well that period when they started adding smart features but they’re all out of date now so not even connected to the Internet)

All kitchen stuff is just kitchen stuff. No Internet.

Car is still offline.

Only real exception is smart thermostat, and that’s just because when the boiler was installed that’s what they put in.

It’s interesting for everyone, but if the split is US news and World news, this is a US centric story. All of the players are US based. Like I say, the subreddit’s the naming convention these communities are based on had very much a “US” goes in news and “RoW” goes into WorldNews ethos.

I don’t see policies stating that here. So I think it’s a very different situation to the other place (and we can argue about why there’s two news communities, but that’s another story). But, I was just wondering if the moderation was done in the same vain.

I wonder if not allowing this on world news is a leftover from the reddit split between news/worldnews. In the rules here I cannot see anything that says news = US news. But on reddit the news sub DID have that rule. They would delete any non-us story.

As such worldnews was for all non-US news and in that case deleting this very US centric topic would be fair game.

There isn’t that clear cut difference between news/worldnews on the fediverse. It looks like the two communities were created to mirror reddit. But, the rules don’t align.

Also, even as a non American. I knew it would be OAN.

Huh. I am sure you could search for individual books. For sure you could do it by goodreads ID I think? Yes, adding an entire author as the primary way to do things is a bit much for some. I know for sure I have managed to do individual books before now.

Yep, same. Well I actually remember finding the best ways to copy a game on a tape error free first. Some, without protection you could just save back to tape for a digital reproduction (and this also allowed tape to disk conversion). Actually those with non destructive copy protection could kinda be copied too if you knew a little Z80 ASM. Others, you needed to copy tape to tape and hope the quality turned out OK.

But yes, then bringing your box of copied disks (Amiga in my case) into school and swapping with your friends was the way to go.

That’s fine. I’ll make my own internet. With blackjack, and hookers. In fact, forget the internet!

It’s a real shame because Readarr did work and they really just needed to fix their own metadata servers. No? Or were there other problems I’m not aware of?

Oh, this might be some instagram/threads thing then, I know they share an account. I don’t use either of those services.

I know on Facebook there’s these ads for threads and it’s putting random thread “stories” (I don’t know what they’re called) up on the timeline. So I thought they were doing a similar thing between all three services and not honouring the privacy setting.

Still, just my personal opinion. If there’s automatic crossposting, the default really should be to use the more restrictive privacy setting for each service.

No, it’s obviously the trans led far left extremists!

Well, I still have a Facebook account for the few people that are only on there. I am getting ads showing Threads posts, and if you click it, it takes you to threads and wants you to make an account.

So I’m assuming what is happening is that they’re taking posts from one service and showing them on their other services with click through to make accounts on those services. I guess they’re not honouring the privacy setting on the source service. Which if that is the case, is just terrible.

I was about to say, it’s normal for meta. But then I read they made private posts public on the other platform.

No, just no. No excuse for that at all.

My comment about it was it looked like a grifter’s site. But the gov domain gives it legitimacy.

Pardon incoming?