You cannot get picosecond lasers for under $100, not even under $1000. Those devices that you see are dangerous diode lasers that do not work for the advertised application, lie about their specs and are supplied without adequate eye protection. Youtuber Styropyro made a video about them here https://youtu.be/DbzbIGkPW-o
Thanks for that! So those devices on Amazon are just powerful diode lasers that switch on and off ten times a second - they're not even millisecond pulsed lasers.
That powerful beam looks like (dangerous) fun; I've always wanted a laser that can burn things. My inner arsonist would like to be able to set things on fire from 100m. But I'm sure the device must be illegal here.
Styropyro says you can damage your eyes just by looking at the projected laser spot. I wonder whether he's exaggerating his warning a bit.
OK, so no homemade picosecond-laser coffee for me any time soon.
I bought a cheap cat toy laser on amazon that was so powerful our eyes hurt just from testing the thing on our light gray walls etc. Some things are not worth messing around with.
Not sure what you’re being downvoted but Styropyro is correct. There’s one other aspect that people don’t talk about and that’s Q-pulsing. When you turn on 10W diode, the room gets pretty bright from the stray light. The moment you turn on Q-pulsing, the room glows uncomfortably bright, even with eye protection
GLaDOS is a character voiced by Ellen McLain that serves as the main antagonist of the Portal franchise. GLaDOS was originally a self-aware A.I. in the form of a computer that was built as a personality core for the Aperture Science Laboratories' mainframe. She is the main antagonist in the first game, Portal, and serves as a narrator for the second game, Portal 2. She is also the main antagonist of the third game, Portal 3, where she becomes the leader of the Aperture Science Resistance.
A semi-successful attempt at recursion:
thisaidoesnotexist is a tool that is able to generate fake images with high resemblance to real ones. This is achieved by using the GAN to generate the image, and then replacing the generated image with the real one.
I wonder if it's a part of some sort of cyberattack. Someone knows that deleting a file, containing a "1" or "0" from target's gdrive will break something they want, so they filed a false DMCA claim.
Captchas are there to prevent bots which are making thousands or millions of submissions. With a timer the bot just needs to make all of the captcha requests first and then wait 30 seconds for all of the timers to expire in parallel. But with proof of work the spammer actually needs to compute all of the work for every submission, which would require a significant amount of computational power, rendering some types of bots uneconomical to run.
Excellent point! It's not hard for a single attacking context to have the resources to generate vast numbers of requests in parallel. If a botnet is involved, it can use different originating IP addresses.
And so, that's why we need proof of work; thank you for bringing my derailed narrative back on the proper technical track.
Actually, considering the low pay and the rules, prohibiting snartphones at many russian defence companies, cheap dumb phones may be a great target for espionage.
>and the rules, prohibiting snartphones at many russian defence companies
In such companies, you typically leave any electronic devices on you (including watches) at the gate, from clocking in to clocking out. Nobody would care if your phone is dumb, it's still breaking the rule.
Depends, some do indeed ban all electronic devices, others only ban smartphones and any devices with cameras. Probably after this incicident most of them will move towards the former policy.
Signal forcing you to give your phone number to anyone you want to contact is a much bigger security problem to me, especially when in my country it's both somewhat hard to acquire an anonymous sim card and a relatively small sum of money can get you a lot of private information from just having someone's phone number.
Do you happen to know anything about what they'll do about spam?
fAt present, a spammer needs your phone number and a source phone number in order to spam you. A suitable source phone number isn't difficult to get, but presumably spammers' numbers will be blacklisted by Signal as soon as someone complains about the spam. If they drop the need for a source phone number, what will replace that threshold? Do you know?
Look on the bright side - if you get unsuccesfully poisoned with a secret nerve agent by the state intelligence services, you might have a chance at finding the killers.
