what if instead of breaking encryption and violating privacy rights, we had governments enforce the death penalty for people that rape children? Why are we trying to violate the rest of society through our refusal to take out the trash?
I don’t trust the US government and would prefer to wait and see if there are side effects. Are there risks to taking a vaccine that was rapidly produced? We won’t know until we know, and so I will wait at the minimum.
So no, I won’t take it until I see how it plays out in society. And if I am persuaded by the evidence, I might take it. I’ve taken only 1 flu shot. As someone in mid-20s, I have low risk and honestly would prefer getting the flu to injecting myself with a vaccine. So I’ve elected to stop getting flu shots and take the risk. For now, I think 18 hours of suffering isn’t that bad. When I’m over the age of 40, or over 60, or at whatever age I decide, then maybe I’ll reconsider if I prefer to get sick or take a vaccine that may or may not work, given the multitude of strains of the flu.
For now, I wash my hands, wash my food, keep shoes outside, and stay home if I’m sick. Responsible self-quarantining and healthy diet are my strategies to avoid contracting or spreading sickness.
> I’ve taken only 1 flu shot. As someone in mid-20s, I have low risk and honestly would prefer getting the flu to injecting myself with a vaccine. So I’ve elected to stop getting flu shots and take the risk.
This is a very selfish take. Unless you're living your life without any human interaction, then you're contributing to the spread of the flu and soon to be covid which impacts people who are at risk.
Someone just replied saying that they "fundamentally don't care" if they spread the virus because "we'll all die of stupid things". They deleted it or a mod removed it.
I emailed her in response to the Snowden revelations back in 2013. I noticed some similarities in her format. Here's what she emailed back:
------
Dear Cale:
I received your communication indicating your concerns about the two National Security Agency programs that have been in the news recently. I appreciate that you took the time to write on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.
First, I understand your concerns and want to point out that by law, the government cannot listen to an American's telephone calls or read their emails without a court warrant issued upon a showing of probable cause. The programs that were recently disclosed have to do with information about phone calls – the kind of information that you might find on a telephone bill – in one case, and the internet communications (such as email) of non-Americans outside the United States in the other case. Both programs are subject to checks and balances, and oversight by the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary.
As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that I believe the oversight we have conducted is strong and effective and I am doing my level best to get more information declassified. Please know that it is equally frustrating to me, as it is to you, that I cannot provide more detail on the value these programs provide and the strict limitations placed on how this information is used. I take serious my responsibility to make sure intelligence programs are effective, but I work equally hard to ensure that intelligence activities strictly comply with the Constitution and our laws and protect Americans' privacy rights.
These surveillance programs have proven to be very effective in identifying terrorists, their activities, and those associated with terrorist plots, and in allowing the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to prevent numerous terrorist attacks. More information on this should be forthcoming.
· On June 18, 2003, the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) testified to the House Intelligence Committee that there have been "over 50 potential terrorist events" that these programs helped prevent.
· While the specific uses of these surveillance programs remain largely classified, I have reviewed the classified testimony and reports from the Executive Branch that describe in detail how this surveillance has stopped attacks.
· Two examples where these surveillance programs were used to prevent terrorist attacks were: (1) the attempted bombing of the New York City subway system in September 2009 by Najibullah Zazi and his co-conspirators; and (2) the attempted attack on a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in October 2009 by U.S. citizen David Headley and his associates.
· Regarding the planned bombing of the New York City subway system, the NSA has determined that in early September of 2009, while monitoring the activities of Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, NSA noted contact from an individual in the U.S. that the FBI subsequently identified as Colorado-based Najibullah Zazi. The U.S. Intelligence Community, including the FBI and NSA, worked in concert to determine his relationship with Al Qaeda, as well as identify any foreign or domestic terrorist links. The FBI tracked Zazi as he traveled to New York to meet with co-conspirators, where they were planning to conduct a terrorist attack using hydrogen peroxide bombs placed in backpacks. Zazi and his co-conspirators were subsequently arrested. Zazi eventually pleaded guilty to conspiring to bomb the NYC subway system.
· Regarding terrorist David Headley, he was also involved in the planning and reconnaissance of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India that killed 166 people, including six Americans. According to NSA, in October 2009, Headley, a Chicago businessman and dual U.S. and Pakistani citizen, was arrested by the FBI as he tried to depart from Chicago O'Hare airport on a trip to Europe. Headley was charged with material support to terrorism based on his involvement in the planning and reconnaissance of the hotel attack in Mumbai 2008. At the time of his arrest, Headley and his colleagues were plotting to attack the Danish newspaper that published the unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, at the behest of Al Qaeda.
Not only has Congress been briefed on these programs, but laws passed and enacted since 9/11 specifically authorize them. The surveillance programs are authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which itself was enacted by Congress in 1978 to establish the legal structure to carry out these programs, but also to prevent government abuses, such as surveillance of Americans without approval from the federal courts. The Act authorizes the government to gather communications and other information for foreign intelligence purposes. It also establishes privacy protections, oversight mechanisms (including court review), and other restrictions to protect privacy rights of Americans.
The laws that have established and reauthorized these programs since 9/11 have passed by mostly overwhelming margins. For example, the phone call business record program was reauthorized most recently on May 26, 2011 by a vote of 72-23 in the Senate and 250-153 in the House. The internet communications program was reauthorized most recently on December 30, 2012 by a vote of 73-22 in the Senate and 301-118 in the House.
You may be interested to know that the Senate Intelligence Committee will be proposing changes to these programs to ensure transparency and to make public additional facts. Attached to this letter is an opinion piece (http://tinyurl.com/NSA-OpEd) I authored in the Washington Post on July 30, 2013 that further highlights our proposed changes. While I very much regret the disclosure of classified information in a way that will damage our ability to identify and stop terrorist activity, I believe it is important to ensure that the public record now available on these programs is accurate and provided with the proper context.
Again, thank you for contacting me with your concerns and comments. I appreciate knowing your views and hope you continue to inform me of issues that matter to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841.
As others have pointed out, you could use a static html page, vanilla js, etc, but ignoring this, I see value for future learning. Sure, there are alternatives, but it looks like the industry wants React skills. I've never used React, and I'm pretty new to web design, so this makes me interested in learning. It's a small project, one which I could modify and study.
This is how I got into making my own website. I came across BMFW [0], and studied the CSS file. I styled my plain html, adapted their CSS, and then kept going, finding inspiration from other sites and projects along the way. Almost 4 years later, my site [1] is a lot better, though still not perfect or finished.
I plan to download this React template, and use it as a learning opportunity. I'm definitely more interested in learning Vue or another hipster ass framework, but at this point I've done zero learning. Gotta start somewhere.
Used Adguard for about 2.5 years, and literally switched to NextDNS yesterday after reading this article. I've got a blog post about DNS ad-blocking [0], updating stuff now and then. I hope it points out some of the different features and reasons to use one over the other. Let me know what you think!
Same here. I'd got an iPhone 7 with 128GB for only $100 used, on Craigslist. I only buy used phones now, and I never spend more than $200. The market is always saturated with used phones, and they work fine.
I bought two Sony a7ii cameras and a flash for only $1400, because they were used. Full price new, it would've been 3600. They work great, and I can use my money on other things. I see very few reasons to buy new electronics, especially given the security of an iPhone and how easily they are reset.
Yeah that was a profoundly underwhelming article, especially for an "expert". You would think Maria and Matt would set a higher standard for contributors.
It's an interesting idea, and I totally agree with it, but the article seems like a long shower thought. I'd love to see more evidence that a list of links is actually the right solution for Berkshire Hathaway customers. I bet it is, but the author is making a big assumption that what exists works for their customers because Berkshire Hathaway is successful.
With a larger sensor, you don't have to compress the image as much, so you can record more detail per unit of area.
If you take two pictures of the same scene, one with a small sensor, and the other with a larger sensor, the geometric difference is apparent.
Scale a 5 meter tree down to the size of a phone's sensor, and you're having to tightly pack the detail of the tree, to something smaller than your fingernail.
But shrink that same tree onto a bigger sensor, or a sheet of 4x5 film, and you don't compress the tree as much.
We don't notice the shortcomings of phone sensors until we try to print the photos. They don't enlarge very well. Printing an 8x10 from a cellphone is challenging, and the grain and imperfections are magnified.
But you can enlarge that piece of film to 8x10 no problem, and the detail is astounding.
If you only look at phone pictures on a phone, then they look very nice, and a piece of 4x5 film is bigger than some phone screens. There are more silver crystals (pixels) in the film than there are pixels in your phone screen, so you can't appreciate the total detail of film on a small phone either.
The thing to consider is choosing the sensor or the film size based on how you want to display the image. Then you pick the best camera for the situation, considering cost, convenience, usability, etc.
I have worked a lot of different analog film cameras and digital ones, and I've noticed that most cameras can take great pictures. You end up paying more for usability and quality. Pro bodies have dedicated buttons and whatnot, so you can accomplish what you need, very quickly.
A touch-screen camera with pure software controls is never going to be for pros, but, cell phones have their moments of better performance for getting the job done.
A cellphone camera is like a piano that plays chords but not individual notes as far as usability. A manual camera lets you do what you want and make up new chords.
Hope that clarifies the image sensor aspect. Aperture helps, but it can never make up for the constraints of the sensor.
> Printing an 8x10 from a cellphone is challenging, and the grain and imperfections are magnified.
Have you verified this personally or seen any data on this? I find this claim very hard to believe. I make several 24x36 prints in a year (albeit from APS-C and FF sensors, but sometimes heavily cropped) and 8x10 is a tiny size that should not present a challenge for any modern cellphone's sensor.
I've used online printing for my cell phone, even pictures from latest iPhones, and they look grainy at 4x6 or 5x7. Maybe it's just a poor printing service. But I spend a lot of time on my computer looking at photos, and the cell phone pics don't look as good. I think some rigorous testing would be a very fun project.
I have been meaning to shoot a roll of ISO 16 film, the CMS20 II by Adox. They claim it can resolve up to 500MP of details.
Would be great to compare to results to full frame with adapted film lens.
