When I lived in the PNW I got to know my birds really well. The chickadees were some of my favorite to watch, so dexterous and playful at the feeders.
He's very right about the (hilarious) aggressiveness of hummingbirds, but I did notice the different species acted very different. Not sure the names but the shiny green ones are far more tolerant of each other (I have a picture of 8 sitting on the same feeder at once). The lighter ones with black/yellow/grey markings are SO mean though! Constantly divebombing and harassing. I did have one other (much more rare) type that was orange, that had the most unique personality. Very sweet and brave, but very much a joker. The way he would taunt and "guard" the feeder seemed more like an invitation to play.
For more oddly adorable hummingbirds, I highly recommend this video of a swarm of them having a bit of a party in the water fountain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeKu6NEf02g
Incredible little feathered narwhal bees. And there are so many different kinds of hummingbirds; several hundred I think.
Been in or around tech my whole life and this is the first time I've heard of security.txt. This article is trying to shame or something over what even https://securitytxt.org/ is calling "A proposed standard..."?
The “fail to serve” wording in the headline is unnecessarily rage-baity.
It’s an interesting proposal, but trying to shame people into adopting proposed things is more likely to generate groans and disinterest in 2025 than to win converts.
I see these sort of things as a signal. I would personally encourage use internally, because I would like to signal towards the right sort of researchers.
But when you conflate that with some sort of expectation or "minimum effort" and try to shame people with it you signal something else, particularly to people who disagree with the value of said standard. I've had people show me my domains on "DNSSEC Hall of shame" site and my opinion of that site's existence lowers every time.
Well, I mean, it's a self-parodying site, since almost every common domain you type into it fails the test. People calling you out for flunking on that site are saying something important about themselves, not about your security practice.
People who spent hours finding the right security contacts for companies without luck would likely disagree. The key failure is not the single missing file, but that security contacts are too hard to find and the effect that has.
That website misrepresents the RFC in a way that I can only describe as deliberate and egregious. To quote the RFC itself, "This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes."
In other words, someone had an interesting and possibly good idea, and did the non-trivial to get it published as an RFC (getting even informational RFCs take considerable effort) and now someone (else?) is trying to misrepresent its status.
As said in another comment, "nothing burger". Also, {click,flame}bait.
I'm with you on this. Until proven otherwise I'm going to assume that we're very, very special, maybe even the point of the whole thing, that all of it is necessary just so we can be here. More of an excuse to not mess up what little we do have control over.
I can't see how one can come to such conclusion. We know that there are trillions of stars, and an even greater number of planets, in the universe. We know that life can start relatively easily on some planets, as we know it happened at least once. Out of trillions, there must be at least millions of planets that "look like" ours out there. How can one conclude "we are very very special" given that information? It's illogical to me.
The more traditional way to use it is to chew on leaves, which is a far less intense and slower way to use it. Probably the approach you'd take if you wanted to get something useful out of the experience.
I've been looking for a solution to translate a dictionary for me. It is a Shipibo-Conibo (indigenous Peruvian language) to Spanish dictionary- I'd like to translate the Spanish to English (and leave the Shipibo intact). Curious for any thoughts here. I have the dictionary as a PDF (already searchable so I don't think it would need to be re-OCR'd...though that's possible too, it's not clearest scan).
I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Claude/ChatGPT/etc. can just…do that. With the prompt you just gave.
The output could be in Markdown, which is easily turned into a PDF. You would have to break up the input PDF into pages to avoid running out of output window.
I didn't consider that would actually work and am giving it a try now...but by its own estimate it's going to take several days to finish (I'm not paying for plus or whatever).
Smart/iot devices using DoH (or other encrypted DNS) is a headache that would need to be solved at the router (mitming/redirecting to your preferred provider? or straight up blocking) with a big blocklist. Unfortunate what a double-edged sword DoH is becoming.
reply