Maybe time travel requires a receiver to send to? This isn’t my idea, but I don’t remember who came up with it. I don’t believe that’s possible either, but that would explain why we haven’t seen any travelers yet and still keep time travel a theoretical possibility. You can never travel further back in time than to the invention of the first time machine.
I see what you did there
I’ve worked in hospitals for 20 years now and the one thing that always been consistent is how overworked and underpaid nurses are. The only reason healthcare even somewhat works is that nurses work their asses off to care for the patients.
Yes
Someone not having all that much of a garden or suspect that the plant will be gone before harvest if kept outside? Maybe?
Couldn’t agree more.
I’d say it is feasible, it is more about willingness to implement. My guess is also that many sites will probably request this or intentionally not working or working badly if off, so most people is gonna keep it always on because convenience, if implemented. It’s better than always on by default but not optimal. Letting randos on the internet control your HW is iffy at best.
I used to, but that’s not enough and that’s only for me anyway. To few people are doing it, so you can be easily identified because you do stuff like this. (See the TOR browser approach and their recommendations about changing the defaults) Many sites don’t like it so most people aren’t willing to do that or rather don’t care or know how to.
By Bowdlerizing/randomizing the data for each call (or site/session probably) instead, the data will still be ‘valid’, but not as traceable and would negate the need for such hacks that almost noone does and which also makes you stand out like a sore thumb.
It probably isn’t possible or at least not easy on Windows/Apple, so it would be a Linux only thing. Which is a problem too and opens up to Linux blocking or subtler “upgrade your browser to…” type errors.
There are certainly issues and problems with this I’ve not considered or mentioned. It is not a popular idea among the tech giants for one, and they’d do whatever they can to nip something like this in the bud.
I’m not really knowledgeable enough to say for sure, but this sounds like a privacy nightmare. It’s hard enough to keep browsers in general from giving up enough info to identify you even without cookies, but I can’t even begin to see how to stop this from leaking just about everything.
Direct HW access for browsers? Not a fan. What we need is a layer between the browser and the HW that anonymizes and generalizes the API responses instead. I get the increased latency would be directly opposed to what this is trying to achieve, but it’s a prize I’m willing to pay. It’s contrary to what every tech giant wants, which is an indication it’s actually a good idea. They aren’t our friends.
The guy who started that needs to be flogged with jumper cables while telling interesting tidbits about himself.
As a vixen I’d prefer a small rodent, but men are universally clueless it seems.
You are correct. If I gave the impression that it is a safe endeavour, I am sorry. It is safe IF done correctly, but it can get explodey if you fuck up bad enough.
Do your research, keep it small scale and don’t sell.
I you make your own, there is no risk for blindness. Blindness comes from methanol, not ethanol. If you use a yeast based process to produce the alcohol and then distill it, there is no way to accidentally produce methanol in that process. The cases where people get blind or die from moonshine stems from when the feds replaced moonshine with methanol to be able to make that claim and disrupt the business of organized crime during the prohibition. There are still cases now and then where people try to make drinkable alcohol from some industrial base and don’t know how to.
TLDR: Don’t buy, make.
Haven’t seen it, but it might be the source nevertheless.