I think it's harder to spoof toll free numbers. For example, you can't block caller ID in the same way. I'm sure it's still possible to spoof, but just might be a little harder.
This works best when you pair it with promoting personal responsibility, otherwise you have to be careful it doesn't lead to the mindset of "I can throw this on the ground because it's somebody else's job to pick it up."
People already throw things on the ground because it’s somebody else’s job to pick it up. It’s a culture issue broader than simply “personal responsibility.” People in the US don’t like to be inconvenienced or we tend to shriek about personal freedoms.
In the US you likely need wildly punitive measures - not just small fines - to deal with the issue. Also would fall along party aligns with minutes and become a partisan issue immediately.
Yes well-executed public awareness programs can shift culture over several years (this campaign is over 40 years old wow!) but we also need to clean up what's there now and what will continue to accrue until that shift occurs.
I would be more than happy to see my city or state tax dollars put towards a cleanup initiative. We have a particularly fragile ecosystem
Even just seeing people cleaning up is enough to begin to change perceptions, because it turns it from an impersonal action to a personal one - "I'm throwing this wrapper on the ground" vs "I'm throwing this wrapper on the ground for old Joe to pick up."
We can all be the change we want to see, even if it's just a minor effort.
Around here major cleanups are done by some of the local "community groups" but they also have a department of parks that does some additional to named trails.
The next logical step would be to somehow inform users so they could take action to replace the bad memory. I realize this is a challenge given the anonymized nature of the crash data, but I might be willing to trade some anonymity in exchange for stability.
The easy solution for that is to just do that analysis locally...
Firefox doesn't submit the full core dumps anyhow for this exact reason and therefore needs to do some preprocessing in any case.
I think the firefox crash reporter does now? It does a limited memory scan and reports problems it finds. No privacy violations required.
That's different from what you're suggesting, because you're right that the crash reports are analyzed with heuristics to guess at memory corruption. Aside from the privacy implications, though, I think that would have too many false alarms. A single bit flip is usually going to be an out of bounds write, not bad RAM.
The memory issue may not necessarily be from bad ram, it can also be due to configuration issues. Or rather it may be fixable with configuration changes.
I had memory issues with my PC build which I fixed by reducing the speed to 2800MHZ, which is much lower than its advertised speed of 5600MHZ. Actually looking back at this it might've configured its speed incorrectly in the first place, reducing it to 2800 just happened to hit a multiple of 2 of its base clock speed.
> A more reasonable upper limit might be to assume that every atom in the observable universe will get one ID (we assume atoms won’t be assigned multiple IDs throughout time, which is a concession). There are an estimated atoms in the universe. Using the same equation as above, we find that we need 532 bits to avoid (probabilistically) a collision up to that point.
This doesn't take into account that you will inevitably want to assign unique IDs to various groups of atoms (e.g. this microchip, that car, etc.). And don't even get me started on assigning unique IDs to each subatomic particle.
Just because a given particle is indistinguishable from another of the same type doesn't mean they are the same actual thing. If you are assigning IDs to each item in the universe for accounting/inventory purposes, you'll still want a separate ID for each particle.
Yes, but the issue is that they don't have identity. The idea of assigning unique identifiers to particles is doomed because, basically, "there are no particles, there are only fields" (https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616).
Particles are how quantized fields present themselves when probed by localized interactions. In general, they're also observer-dependent.
The idea of assigning an "ID" to an object reflects a macro-level notion of re-identifiable objects persisting through time. But at the quantum level, that kind of classical individuality - object identity - doesn't exist.
Wouldn't the minimum discrete unit be something that is capable of recording the ID? Or, if not, space somewhere would need to identify that that atom has this ID, which would take at least as much space.
In other words, the act of 'assignment' presupposes some mechanism of assignment, and at a certain level of granularity the information needed for that mechanism to function is greater than the information the system can store.
It would be like assigning each byte in a stick of ram a 32 bit random access ID, and trying to store the assignments in the same memory space. Memory addressing only works because we assume a linear, unchanging order.
Even every possible permutation of every single subatomic element in the universe? Even if we just consider atoms, at 10^80 atoms in the entire universe, there are (10^80)! possible permutations, which is many, many, many orders of magnitude larger.
And this isn't even counting sets that include multiples of the same item; once you get into that territory, there really is no upper bound.
New atoms form all the time, either through fusion or fission. The latter is happening right now all around you- either from potassium in plants breaking down, to radon gas that sept up from the ground, to carbon itself. All of these have unstable isotopes with half lives short enough to have at least a little activity near you.
Given that constant change to the available combinations of sets, it would seem that a truly capable system would need to be practically infinite, no?
So in a physical sense of identifying things that's nonsense. And again if you allow that then lists of just one or two atoms can take up infinite storage space. That's a super obvious reject. It makes no sense to even try to accommodate it in an ID system.
Do you know of any similar organization that would be interested in tackling a lavishly written and illustrated school newspaper published in Germany from 1902-1906? It's about 50 issues total, each about 12 pages long, and I've already scanned them all; I just need somebody to do the heavy lifting of setting up the OCR/transcription pipeline that can handle old German script. (Bonus: the newspaper was co-created by the future wife of a pretty famous person.)
I wouldn't call it trivial. First you have to determine where to cut it; if you cut the wrong area you have to cut again. All the steps in repairing it either take time, are messy, or require some skill, and the time adds up (e.g. waiting for the patch to dry before you can sand; waiting for the primer to dry before you can paint; etc.).
And then you have to match the surrounding paint, which is all but impossible since even if you have the same color, the original will have likely faded over the years, making your newly applied coat a mismatch, so now you have to paint the entire wall (no fun when it's a big wall). And if you had wallpaper instead of paint, good luck to you unless you saved some extra scraps.
All in all, an access panel would make the job much simpler.
Ok, I glossed over color matching the wall patch. Fair.
But there really aren’t many walls you need to open in a house. There is probably 2-3 wet walls, so unless you need to retrofit some ducting why are you opening a wall? Code says there are no hidden wire junctions, so you’ve just got continuous runs of romex that are secured before they terminate… what do you open a wall for?
Most of the drywall repair is just physical damage to the drywall itself.
In theory, I'd rather get at something through an access panel than via cutting and patching drywall, but practically speaking, you're right: it's rare to have to open a wall, and an access panel that isn't specifically for something you need to access regularly is just a nice-to-have, and not even necessarily all that useful unless it provides the access you actually need at the time.
The thing is you might not need to access your electric or plumbing for like 100 years. You do get a panel where access is presumably on a more regular schedule: usually the shower hookups are accessible from a closet.
Has anybody tried to win by spoofing the caller ID? For science, of course.
reply