deleted by creator

A Layer-3 (network-layer) blacklist risks cutting off innocent CGNAT and cloud users. What you’re proposing is similar to mechanisms that already exist (e.g., access control lists at the ISP level work by asking computer B which requests it wants to reject and rejecting those that originate from computer A). However, implementing any large-scale blocking effort beyond the endpoint (i.e. telling an unrelated computer C to blackhole all requests from computer A to computer B) would be too computationally expensive for a use case as wide and as precise as “every computer on the Internet”.

Also, in your post you mentioned, “A host would need to have a way to identify itself as authoritative, responsible for the IP address in question.” This already happens in the form of BGP though it doesn’t provide cryptographic proof of ownership unless additional mechanisms are in use (RPKI/ROA).

I also agree that there is something that superficially seems to be supernatural. However, I believe that the reason things appear to be supernatural is because all supernatural-looking events (i.e. all correct predictions about a room) are being presented as supernatural despite random guesses accounting for a lot of these. Whether or not these events are actually supernatural may be checked by the experiment I proposed in another reply. Please do tell me your thoughts on that experiment.

Claims of the supernatural are a subset of correct claims. We can’t comment on the supernatural aspect if all we know is that a claim is correct. This is affirming the consequent.

This can be verified by asking people who have had near-death experiences whether or not they experienced something correct in their near-death experiences. Obviously, such experiences are traumatic, and multiple studies show that people can hallucinate due to the release of various neurotransmitters associated with the same.

We want to calculate the probability that someone manifested as a ghost given that they had an interesting near-death experience. We assume that anyone having a true supernatural experience experiences visions that are absolutely true. For each person, there are two possibilities (we’ll calculate the probability of each later).

The first possibility is that a person, in fact, experienced hallucinations. The second possibility is that a person experienced a ghostly manifestation.

Now, we further give people an objective multiple-choice quiz about the positions of various objects in an environment. To generate this quiz, we ask each person to choose the environment they believe themselves to have manifested in. We verify that they have never been to this environment before and did not have any method of knowing about this environment (e.g., if a subject saw a person going into a room and later gave an exact description of the person in the given room, it will be disregarded). We only test people who believe that they experienced a supernatural event. All options are framed in an equivalent manner and are presented in a randomized order to remove cognitive biases and implement double-blind protocols. We further use questions with non-obvious answers such that they differ from previous implementations (e.g., a vision of a surgery table with an overhead light is obvious, and by itself, not indicative of supernatural phenomena).

If the subject hallucinated, we assume that they have a random chance of predicting the positions of various objects. We now repeat this quiz a large number of times in accordance with the law of large numbers. If, after many repetitions, we find a sufficient deviation from the expected result (e.g., if each question had one correct answer and three incorrect answers, with the observed rate of correct answers being 50% instead of 25%), then we would have evidence supporting the existence of ghosts.

If, however, the results show no sufficient deviation from the expected results, then we would find that the probability of a perceived encounter being supernatural is approximately zero.

In this way, we can use scientific methods to test claims of ghost-like phenomena.

NOTE: If we only focus on the 25% of the cases as mentioned in the above example, we find that we are not focusing on the remaining 75% of the cases. Presenting only 25% of the cases, without giving any thought to the remaining 75% of the cases is an incorrect method of analysis as explained above.

Yes, it is visible when a new trusted device is added. The QR code you scan to link a device contains a one-time public key for that device (ECC is used partly to fit the public key more easily into a QR code). Signal on the phone then sends a lot of information, including the identity keys, to the new device. The new device uses these identity keys to communicate. Note that the transfer of identity keys is fully encrypted, with encryption and decryption taking place on the clients. This can, of course, be bypassed if someone you’re talking to has their security key compromised, but the same risk exists if the recipient takes a screenshot or photographs their device’s screen.

Edit: The security key refers to the one-time key pair generated to initiate the transfer of identity keys and chat history. It can be compromised if someone accidentally scans a QR code and transfers their identity keys to an untrusted device.

I assumed that not only the entire app but also the entire client device had been audited. This was a client-side attack, not Meta momentarily adding itself to the trusted-device list. I’m confident it was a client-side attack because it would be impossible to hide even a momentary change in keys from the client without modifying the client app to conceal such a change.

Even in an “insecure” app without air-gapped systems or manual encryption, creating a backdoor to access plaintext messages is still very difficult if the app is well audited, open source, and encrypts messages with the recipient’s public key or a symmetric key before sending ciphertext to a third-party server.

If you trust the client-side implementation and the mathematics behind the symmetric and asymmetric algorithms, messages remains secure even if the centralized server is compromised. The client-side implementation can be verified by inspecting the source code if the app is open source and the device is trusted (for example, there is no ring-zero vulnerability).

The key exchange itself remains somewhat vulnerable if there is no other secure channel to verify that the correct public keys were exchanged. However, once the public keys have been correctly exchanged, the communication is secure.

99% isopropyl alcohol is ideal as a solvent or cleaning agent for industries that produce water sensitive items, therefore rapid evaporation and low water content is favorable. 99% USP IPA provides the lowest presence of water and in some forms is free from denaturants. Computer technicians, medical device manufacturers, printed circuit board manufacturers, and soldering and rework technicians prefer immediate evaporation for work with sensitive devices such as integrated circuit adapters, computer chips, and circuit boards. 99% IPA evaporates cleanly and minimizes residual substances. Rapid evaporation reduces shelf life but is more effective against sticky residues, grease, and grime than 70% concentrations. Because isopropanol is hygroscopic, acetone may yield better grime fighting results for inks or oils.

The URL you shared recommends using 99% IPA for electronics.

Planners do a lot of preparatory work before laying cables, but based on the few articles and studies I could find online, it appears they rarely share their findings with the public.

Sabotage can also be carried out without submarines. For example, a ship could drag its anchor along the seabed (whether in the Baltic Sea or the Taiwan Strait) near known locations of internet cables.

If I recall correctly, there were multiple posts in different communities.

Is there a specific “undress” button? I tried looking for proof that it exists but couldn’t find any (my searching skills clearly need work). Could you please share a screenshot or point me to a place where I can confirm that it exists?

It’s most likely an error with the nozzle height. The PEI plate not heating up enough shouldn’t cause the adhesion in the photo above (and this is not a first layer problem, as the error is not at a uniform height). Additionally, a few lines are very faintly visible on the plate where they shouldn’t be, indicating nozzle height. Make sure that it is easy to move a piece of paper between the nozzle and the PEI plate when adjusting the height, feeling only a very small amount of pressure as you do so.

That data might be easily accessible, but that was a choice Root made. I think that it is a safe assumption that Root knew most vigilantes keep their identity secret and, assuming a German background, had read Section 202 of the StGB and other relevant laws and court rulings. As such, Root most likely did this despite knowing their identity is at risk. It is likely they did this publicly specifically to inspire others, though I haven’t looked at all the details and there might be a different reason.

Nothing in this comment constitutes legal advice.

Not all hierarchies are bad. For instance, in a judicial system, there need to be different tiers of courts as otherwise, if courts had universal authority and made conflicting decisions, it would complicate the law more so than it is already.

Similarly, in a large society that needs unity, if people make all decisions, the results would be catastrophic as most people don’t have the time or energy to focus on every mundane decision. In such a case, elected representatives becomes mandatory, creating a hierarchy.

Yet another example is cases where fast decision-making is required (e.g., to respond to an emergency). In such a case, there needs to be a central authority who holds others responsible and coordinates response.

Ultimately, if you consider a hierarchy where accountability is possible i.e. one party may have more power over the second than the second over first but the second still has some power over the first, then it makes accountability possible in hierarchies. Hierarchies are only wrong when the power gap increases, a small power gap is alright provided it doesn’t widen with time.

You could make the argument that a chain of accountability is better (X->Y->Z->X), but even such chains may include hierarchies (i.e. X itself is a hierarchy). Similarly, authority diffused among different people also suffers from potential shifting of blame. Truly neutral relations between different parties are impossible and ultimately, a power difference exists between any two parties, though it may be minute, and this power gap must be acknowledged.

In conclusion, there are a lot of disadvantages of hierarchies but there are some domains where hierarchies are good. There is no system of distribution of power that is without flaws.

Enable Administrator password on the menu screen, create a persistent storage (if it doesn’t already exist), download the Flatpak file from the website, and run

torify flatpak install /path/to/file
flatpak run io.github.softfever.OrcaSlicer

Using an AppImage is not a good idea because they have a tendency to give errors if proper software and version are not installed on Tails (on my Tails USB, this was because of GCC) unless you compile your own AppImage. Using Flatpak is better as it allows you to run software on your system even if the versions of GCC etc. are not up to date.

Please keep in mind that I have not confirmed whether this method is secure and would advise that you consider whether this is secure or not depending on your threat model.

Orca works great on Debian 13 for me (I installed it as a Flatpak)