This is a good read documenting technology history in the first half of the 19th century. Babbage drew on his experiences trying to source manufactured parts for his Analytical Engine. At the time manufacturers just could not meet the specifications (tolerances) for the many mass-produced parts the project required.
I think by the end of Babbage's life the parts could have been manufactured, but by then both Babbage and his financiers had moved on.
Are there any legal security issues to be concerned about as a developer of this kind of anonymous service?
I wonder every time I see a project like this, namely anonymous or transient hosting of any kind of user data, whether the developers get any kind of flak from agencies claiming it could be used to nefarious ends.
Serving plain text is obviously less of a concern
than hosting images, video, etc.
But I imagine the more anonymous a service is, the more attractive it is for use by unsavory actors.
With anonymous I think matt_f was referring to the users, not the creator or manager of the service, the issue being that an anonymous user could use the service to transmit illegal/immoral/... information (stolen CC info or identity data, CP, trade secrets, government secrets, and so forth) using the service.
The assumption that makes this a problem is that the service makes such users (at least slightly) less easy to trace, and/or the person(s) running the service might in some jurisdictions be seen as responsible for enabling the illegal activity.
This strikes me as entirely being exactly the things of which you are accuse the parent post's author.
> "people like you are part of the problem"
> "such judgemental bullshit"
> "judgmental jerks who prolong the schism between people"
Whatever your positions or beliefs on the matter, or opinions of the post author to whom you are responding, your opinions and views could be more effectively expressed
using logic and reasoning without the ad hominem and vulgarity.
In any regard: it's beneath the community standards of reasoned and respectful communication on HN, which I think many of us highly appreciate and value.
Last I read, the effectiveness of cloud seeding is still up for debate.
Wikipedia has a section on effectiveness, “A study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences failed to find statistically significant support for the effectiveness of cloud seeding.”[1]
We've actually had a dozen mornings now in the Portland area with significant cloud cover. There's also been NW wind flow so if this technique only needed clouds and wind to push it in the direction of the fires, I don't see a reason why it couldn't work. Then again I'm no meteorologist.
It looks like Google 2FA will support using a Yubikey or something like it, which in my mind is preferable to being required to use the Google mobile app.
> You'll enter your password [...] Then, a code will be sent to your phone via text, voice call, or our mobile app. Or, if you have a Security Key, you can insert it into your computer’s USB port.
Go to some google service > profile menu dropdown in the top right > manage your google account > security > signing in to google > security > 2 step verification.
You can then 'add more second steps to verify it's you' including an option for an authenticator app (i.e. totp). Also worth generating some backup codes while you're at it.
Surely state laws and thus lawsuits based on them can only be applied to entities operating within those states.
Right?