"You" here being people who held digital assets themselves and didn't bring them into the future as their NAS was rebirthed across disk generations.
I am aware of in-filestore corruption of my files including images, and I know I have holes but the curation failure is more in 1984-1990 than after digital cameras entered my life and a scanner is rectifying some of that. But it's a road of tears regarding metadata.
More worrying is the failure inside cloud. Takeout from Google suggests some bitrot lurks in the assets there too.
That 1200bpi reel of tape, and the pre DLT tape cartridge are a worry: media may be OK, readers are rare and services doing recovery charge significantly more than "photo memories of granny" costs.
I wish thinkpad had been viable as a retained business. I've run pre and post leonovo, I liked pre better mostly, but you have to resist thinking anachronistically since the x1 carbons are excellent.
I think absorbing redhat was interesting.
I think IBM is possibly the only Dinosaur which could have swallowed Oracle for a better outcome for everyone but that might have meant sun died hard.
Winchester Disks and RISC architectures. Plasma displays.
I never had nuch interest in their mainframes but they scaled and many people depended on them for massive delivery. I had a lot of time for people from IBM research. They are very good. ETH Zurich and IBM go back a long way. IBM and the IETF go back a long way.
If two individuals come to an agreement outside of google why can't they swap or trade? I can think of many possible reasons BTW but I am interested which ones were the criterion, not just side effects good to have.
The model proposed demands the old address become an alias to the new address. This seems like a sensible simplifying decision.
I may be wrong, but I believe if you formally repudiate an identity in Google it's blocked for reuse, forever.
Homeostasis across the blood brain barrier makes me suspect trivial approaches to boosting glutamate won't work. But this even begs the question if boosting available glutamate would be the right thing.
There are perverse consequences in brain chemistry and signalling: flooding a brain deficient in glutamate processing receptors with glutamate may not help, it may overload pathways and cause hindrance, not compensation.
Signs like this may be consequential, or related but not causal, or may simply turn out to be wrong.
IF a small sample effect turns out to be indicative of a larger property, and IF it's shown to be causal and IF remeditation involves boosting blood borne glutamate or precursors is 3 stacked IF.
IF its detectable in a young brain it could be diagnostic.
IF its detectable in a young brain and amenable to gene therapy and IF it's causative then treatment would be useful.
IF excess glutamate is not a problem and dietary supplemented sources cross the blood brain barrier and don't trip over homeostasis then it's possibly worth exploring.
> Witnessing such scorched-earth containment makes the modern definition of nuclear power as the ‘cleanest energy’ completely incomprehensible to me.
It's definitional in Gwh of productive, usable energy produced per tonne of damage to health. It also demands a lot of rigour against other forms of embedded energy regarding fugitive gas leaks, unassociated third party injury which is usually an externality. And of course it predates the rise in general efficiency of solar and wind and may no longer be true unless very specific criteria are applied like constancy.
But, awful though the trail of tears is behind example contamination events, including Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and Fukishima, counting death in coal or oil demands recognition of a huge problem in life shortening from contamination and injury at large in the whole cycle mine to chimney.
More people died from translocation consequences than direct nuclear radiation consequences in all three of the above. Not to minimise their deaths but if you move a million people in a rush, some die who otherwise would have lived.
"Modern" here is > 1949 and < "whenever wind and solar and batteries got so good"
A generation of gifted, and hard working graduates emerged out of the bitter ashes of the cultural revolution. Their delayed entry to tertiary education and the circumstances behind it gave added impetus to their desire to study and gain knowledge.
I've met several across different disciplines and two (at least) in computer science and networking. When the barriers for travel came down, many studied and worked abroad, I met some in Edinburgh at the end of the 70s who worked in advanced language areas (think the foundations of ML) formal methods, CSP, you-name-it. People like these in networking (I subsequently know and worked with in governance contexts) built and led the chinese academic internet. These people are now senior academics in the Chinese academy of science. They're serious, smart people.
There was also a late 1970s VLSI boom in China. It's why they were so successful in the 80s and 90s outsourcing chip commercialization space.
So to my own knowledge if not "in" the cultural revolution certainly very rapidly afterwards assuming you take its run up into the 70s.
Wild Swans has received criticism for ignoring statistics and human demographic evidence on the scale of the famine, and therefore lacks an element of verifiability and number inflation. However the author wrote in a spirit of truth telling from familial experience as I understand it: she was finishing her PhD when I was studying at the same UK university (York)
Replace with homomorphic encryption through third parties. No need to hold kyc or even see it, just need trusted assertion of holding government issued ID
If I understand correctly, this is the flow you are describing :
1. You show your ID to a "trusted third party"
2. They cryptographically attest "yep, this person has valid government ID"
3. The service (Discord, Coinbase, etc.) only gets the yes/no assertion, never sees your actual docs
The third party would still have your documents. You've just moved the honeypot, not eliminated it. Discord's breach was through a third party. Signzy (a KYC provider) got breached. The whole article is about how third parties can't be trusted either.
You don't show your ID to a TTP you show a homomorphic function of your ID which doesn't leak your credentials and you have a second homomorphic function in the website to the TTP which doesn't leak what your verifying against.
2 and 3 are correct but 1 isn't. They don't get to hold reusable credentials about you, only a function in them which can be verified to show you hold the identity.
reply