My first guess is that the change on the electronic band allows downstream electrical switching of a prism/mirror or other photonic device. So you have a special light signal controlling an electric signal to switch the “regular” light signal. Not sure about the applications for the strong EM field though.
Since this is the topic, I'm going to post my own recent experience with Google/Youtube: (also with the hope that a good soul can assist/give pointers)
I have a YT channel with a short-feature documentary film I uploaded 13 years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nz4N2K64o8). Last year YT started sending emails that channels with inactive accounts will start being deleted. So I have been working on logging on my channel account which is a Google ID tied to an email on my own domain (startingupinamerica.com) on which I still get emails. I still have the correct password to this Google ID, and 2FA was never enabled.
Google will not let me log in, as they insist on sending a verification code to a phone number I no longer own since years ago. Support requests keep sending me to a guide/process that will repeat the same thing again and again and that if I don't have any option that's that. All I get are the emails that "someone is trying to access your account" when I try to login.
I have been wondering what is the resolution in this case, it seems it's either know-someone or going to court (and risk getting banned?).
I'm in the same situation. I have an account where I have the email/pass/recovery email, and I have all emails from the account forwarded to me. But I can't get into it because it requires a phone number I no longer have. There was no 2FA on the account because the term barely existed when I created the account.
I've put a significant amount of time into this problem, I've talked to various people inside Google on the phone (there are numbers they have to provide by law, such as a number to get your data out etc). Nobody has yet been able to solve this problem.
My next step is just to turn up to Google HQ and set up camp in their parking lot until someone finds a way to get me back into my own account. Let me know (email on profile) if you ever find a solution.
(p.s. finding rogue Meta employees isn't too hard, but I've yet to find a rogue Googler who I can pay off for this)
This is a common misconception. It's something that was discussed orally and taken out of its context and is being repeated today [1]. Besides the fact that NATO is a voluntary alliance and not an empire. At one point Russia was even considered for joining NATO.
The Budapest memorandum however was a written agreement, much more meaningful, though sadly not binding.
Pantone is really print-oriented, even if they've surfed on the brand to expand to fashion & cosmetics. That's why the standard Pantone PMS colors don't have whites.
Munsell is more general purpose.
But RAL & NCS are also used widely, and will probably both keep going up in popularity for reasons I outlined in my other comment on this thread.
Another aspect in addition to what others said: digital color libraries are generally available for free or low cost.
- Pantone recently removed its color libraries from Adobe products to make them an additional subscription of $14.99/month
- Pantone colors are always a subscription on color readers/spectrometers unless you buy X-Rite's high end readers. RAL is available for free on most color readers.
- NCS is a bit between RAL and Pantone in that regard, they sell an affordable color reader (for its full spectrum capabilities) that includes the NCS library, but it is a paid subscription for other readers, albeit cheaper than Pantone.
RAL is a lot, lot cheaper than Munsell or Pantone (now both owned by X-Rite) and is particularly well suited for Industrial Design.
- you can get yourself a fan of RAL Classic colors for $16, which are solid colors that include enough grays, whites and colors to get started and cover all basic needs, and that most industrial/finishing shops already have
- most shops now also accept Pantone PMS C (coated), which cost $260, but Pantone comes from printing and so has no whites, you need to add FHI TPG+TCX (another $260) to get whites. Pantone recommends replacing the fans every 12-18 months before their die age
- Munsell is a "full" color space so as such it is inherently more expensive (even more so that it is now owned by X-Rite), with a rich history in USDA standards, food QA, science and artists. NCS and RAL "Design" also feature "full" color space, most certainly a lot cheaper than Munsell
Cost is important because everybody in your supply chain need to have the color system on hand: designers, marketing, suppliers, QA.
- Munsell (1,600): $1,525 - $1,625 (Munsell book of colors matte - glossy), cheaper subselections of colors based around neutral, soil, plant & rock colors
- NCS (2,050): $210, used a lot in architecture/interior design, from Sweden
- RAL Design (1,825): $160, all its colors are additional to/not in Classic/Design
If you need a few colors, a curated system is more adapted and cheaper, but a curated system with thousands of colors (Pantone) is more expensive and less versatile than a system based on a color space.
As you can see the whole RAL catalog/system of color is designed for cost and so that you can start small and expand, and have enough variety at each level + it has nice features that shows its Industrial orientation such as all colors being solid and textured plastics.
RAL catalog has each system building on the other, Munsell is a color space with subsets picked from it for specific uses, NCS is always the full color space, Pantone is a gigantic, somewhat incoherent curated system that started with printing and expanded into fashion & cosmetics.
Munsell is based around different sectors of industry & science, so color subsets availability, design and price dictate that it is uneconomical for other sectors or more general design outside gov standards. E.g. Munsell even has a frozen french fry color standard book! [1]
There are many more color systems and color spaces, but those are the main ones for which there is wide availability of physical color books around the World.
I am not sure this is the correct take, they happened to have assumed the debt prior. But the building was sold independently for this price at a public auction. They had to do this to find the fair value of the building to deduct it from the debt. You could have bid 6.57M and won if no one bid after. Now they own the building and the remainder of the debt.
What difference does it make? It cost them more than $6.56M in the end but to deduct the building at a fair price they had to auction it and nobody bid higher than that.
