I would guess that sentence: "that sank 2600 years ago" would imply that we are not talking about exact date. But more explicit word like: "that sank about 2600 years ago" would help.
Using different number formatting instead of word or sign (~) is still implicit and not explicit.
Unless the precision (resolution) is known (stated), it is unclear whether the trailing zeroes are significant or not, one may only guess (while such a guess looks reasonable in this case). A convention for writing that unambiguously is to avoid insignificant trailing zeroes: e.g., writing it as 26e2 or 2.6e3. Then the written number carries along its precision.
This reminds me of Andrew Scott Waugh, who surveyed the height of Mount Everest. He was sure his method was accurate to the nearest foot but he measured the height of the mountain at exactly 29,000 feet.
Since he thought people would assume it was a rounded figure, he reported it as 29,002. And is therefore known as the man who first put 2 feet on the top of Everest.
In contexts significant figures might be relevant, a bar over the last 0 or a decimal point at the end are the easiest methods of saying "no really, these 0s are the real deal". Though you have other options like scientific notation, an explicit uncertainty bound, or natural language context too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures#Ways_to_de...
It doesn't seem it is showing the tilt for Earth correct. When I zoom in for around now, the North Pole is in full sun rather than mid Winter. (I'm in Australia so I don't know if it is somehow using my local timezone wrongly)
Actually I have heard the exact opposite of what you are stating is true. Both Google and Apple fight very hard to avoid handing data to authorities. They don't want to be seen as some sort of easy conduit to government surveillance or shill. How does that benefit their reputation? I know of one case where Google spent millions on lawyers fighting government wanting access to an activist's email. Their FAQ here makes their policy pretty clear. https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961...
Apple’s own transparency report indicates they turn over data to the USG for over 100,000 different apple IDs each year in the no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs) category.
(Mind you; this includes device location histories due to geoip logs, unique identifiers, iMessage histories, photos, documents, everything.)
The cases they are allowed to tell you about aren’t in this category. They aren’t even allowed to say exactly how many of the secret warrantless orders they received, or exactly how many users were affectee, only 500-count ranges.
For just Apple, for just January 2023 to June 2023 (six months):
National Security - FISA Non-Content Requests
Table for National Security - FISA Non-Content Requests Data
Requests Received
0 - 499
Users/Accounts
40,500 - 40,999
National Security - FISA Content Requests
Table displaying National Security - FISA Content Requests
Requests Received
500 - 999
Users/Accounts
50,500 - 50,999
National Security Letter Requests
Table for National Security Letter Requests data
Requests Received
0 - 499
Users/Accounts
1,000 - 1,499
National Security Letters where Non-disclosure Order Lifted
> Apple’s own transparency report indicates they turn over data to the USG for over 100,000 different apple IDs each year in the no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs) category.
FISA “orders” are warrants and have the same requirement for probable cause as any search or seizure warrant (they aren't criminal warrants so the probable cause is not of there being evidence of a crime, but of the target being an agent of a foreign power.)
NSLs are administrative subpoenas accompanied with gag orders, not warrants, and correspondingly do not have a probable cause requirement; unlike warrants (and like other subpoenas), they are subject to precompliance challenge (and the associated gag order is challengable separately.)
> FISA “orders” are warrants and have the same requirement for probable cause as any search or seizure warrant (they aren't criminal warrants so the probable cause is not of there being evidence of a crime, but of the target being an agent of a foreign power.)
You put orders in quotes, but that’s what they are called, because it is illegal and inaccurate to call them warrants, because warrants per 4A are issued only upon probable cause. FISA orders are warrantless and do not require probable cause.
Snowden was very clear when he released the data on FAA702. No probable cause is required. They are not warrants. There is nobody in the room except a government petitioner and a government judge who rubber stamps them.
They are the #1 most used source in the US IC, and they make it possible for the FBI and DHS et al to read all of your gmail, all of your google docs, and all of your iMessages and phone photos without so much as a shred of criminal wrongdoing.
The idea that they are used only for foreign surveillance is patently false. There is ample hard documentation (again, thanks to Snowden) that they routinely use these to spy on americans. Their twisted logic is that if the data is replicated outside of the US (to say, a datacenter in Europe) then they are legally permitted to access it under the way the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act (Section 702) is written.
> You put orders in quotes, but that’s what they are called, because it is illegal and inaccurate to call them warrants, because warrants per 4A are issued only upon probable cause.
Orders authorizing foreign intelligence surveillance purposes under FISA are warrants, and are often called warrants, and they, like all warrants, are issued only on probable cause. (It is not improper to call them “orders”, and they are often referred to that way, as well, it is just less specific; all warrants are [court] orders, but not all court orders, much less all orders more generally, are warrants.)
Subchapter I of FISA established procedures for the conduct of foreign intelligence surveillance and created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The Department of Justice must apply to the FISC to obtain a warrant authorizing electronic surveillance of foreign agents. For targets that are U.S. persons (U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens, and U.S. corporations), FISA requires heightened requirements in some instances.
* Unlike domestic criminal surveillance warrants issued under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the “Wiretap Act”) , agents need to demonstrate probable cause to believe that the “target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power,” that “a significant purpose” of the surveillance is to obtain “foreign intelligence information,” and that appropriate “minimization procedures” are in place. 50 U.S.C. § 1804.
* Agents do not need to demonstrate that commission of a crime is imminent.
* For purposes of FISA, agents of foreign powers include agents of foreign political organizations and groups engaged in international terrorism, as well as agents of foreign nations. 50 U.S.C. § 1801
FISA warrants do not have the check and balance safeguards that other warrants have, and the system for getting FISA warrants has been extensively and egregiously abused
>they are subject to precompliance challenge
and it's weird you go to the trouble to mention this but slough over the problems with FISA warrants. You are not arguing honestly here.
Yeah, it's actually amazing I was able to buy 75 little computers with their own buttons, LEDs, wifi and internally hosted HTML pages for $15 each delivered overnight.
But yeah, building a custom house. It's definitely not for the faint of heart. Having done it now, I like to advise "If you're someone with the resources to build your own custom home, you'll find the experience transforms you... into someone who no longer has the resources to even build a garden shed." :-)
To be fair, we knew this going in and only did it because we happened to have access to a deeply experienced general contractor who'd built high-end custom homes for several friends of ours over the past 15 years. And he has his own dedicated crew, most of who have worked only with him for much of that time. Although he wasn't the cheapest (nor the most expensive), he had an extremely impressive, personally verifiable track record. That's very rare to find, and without it, we probably wouldn't have even considered doing a custom home. And he did complete the project nearly on time and nearly on budget - and COVID happened during the build. Everyone else we know who was building a home during COVID ended up at least a year late and >40% over budget - so, even though technically a little late/over budget, the guy delivered at a near-miraculous level given the circumstances.
It reminds of the art of M.C.Escher in the sense that it is driven by a mathematical mindset, yet goes beyond mindless repetition. This artist and M.C. Escher would have loved having access to computer drawing program I think.
I have a 135 minute train ride to my office which I probably undertake once every week or two. Thankfully I can be seated for it and usually have enough room to either work with my laptop or just have a snooze or chillout to some media. While driving might get me their (on a good day) in 30 minutes less time, the train trip is definitely more relaxing and a better investment of my time.
