A more honest approach would be to require a signup before an action takes place. Letting a user do some things, get invested, and then drop a signup requirement on them is a dark pattern
I can't tell if I'm the first one or the latter. Am I not making them sign up before anything happens(can't do anything without an account besides look at other people debate)? Or is that a bad thing?
I was able to choose a difficulty level/debate partner and then a debate topic.
Only then was I asked to log in with a Google account. But I don't even have a Google account... So, I just configured the whole session for absolutely no useful reason. Not that it wasted a lot of my time but it is generally a more annoying thing to happen. Handle the login first, or announce that it is required with some disclaimer before the user performs any action.
ahh already I get it now. I only binded the room code to force login, I forgot to force login on the other button/elements. Thanks I'll fix that. Also what account do you use? I sort of assumed google would be the easiest, most standard/popular one.
That's already possible, it's just expensive. Remember when the kindles[1] used to have the option for built-in 2G/3G connectivity "for life" to download books from Amazon that you never had to sign up for or maintain or pay for. Until networks dropped support for 2G and 3G in 2021.
Exactly, like Amazon sidewalk. They market it as an easy configuration feature but it can also be used for tracking and telemetry. So your smart TV can call home even when you don't connect your own WiFi.
Arguably all your IoT devices already do. There were multiple startups advertising "routing at the edge" or some other such bullshit maybe ~5 years ago. I have no idea what happened with those ventures but these days multiple ISPs offer the general public roaming WiFi access via the APs of their customers so I think it's safe to say that ship has long since sailed.
Come to think of it how cheap are LoRaWAN radios these days? That's another option.
I'm sure this costs money to use, just like regular cell service would for the same theoretical IoT device. That's probably the main barrier to having its own network.
Phoning home with a few packets here and there via the cell network is quite cheap. An adversary, pardon I mean OEM, doesn't need to upload 4k video to gain value here.
If anyone walks past your house with a device in the same bluetooth p2p network as your device this is already true (Amazon sidewalk). This could give them a more uninterrupted connection though.
Stucco itself is not conductive, but it's usually applied on a base of metal mesh (similar to chicken wire, but apparently actual chicken wire isn't appropriate). Some projects use fiberglass mesh as the lath, and some may use traditional wood lath, but my understanding is the majority of stucco for house construction uses metal wire mesh for the lath.
Ps in order to be an effective Faraday cage it must also be grounded and no gaps in the metal may be larger than the wavelength that needs to be blocked. Which is only a couple centimetres (or around an inch or so) for the highest ones
Stucco mesh needs to have no gaps for its structural needs, it's commonly overlapped by 3-6 inches. And, depending on the surface, the mesh may embed into the ground, offering a ground connection (if poor)...
The mesh does have many openings, but they are around the size you mention, so it should be ok-ish.
Otoh, there's like doors and windows. I believe a partial faraday cage still significantly reduces signal strength though. It'a difficult to use cell networks in my parents' stucco house, but step outside and it's fine. But stucco is also very similar to concrete, so that could be it, too.
Zero knowledge proofs are basically arbitrary proof of work models. There is some interesting work being done with MPC and ZK proving, so only a small part needs to live on the client. I wonder if this would make it feasible again
You would likely be unhappy if you saw the outcomes of almost all vehicle manslaughter cases. It’s the easiest way to kill someone and get away with it consequence free
Having been a juror on a civil trial against the MTA, I assure you that the New York public is perfectly willing to hold people accountable for injury.
Drunk driving was reduced over my lifetime [1] by calling attention to it (e.g. MADD), shaming the practice, lowering BAC thresholds, and increasing enforcement.
Similar approaches could be done for pedestrian injury by vehicles. Sure, it takes more time (and does not scam $9 from my pocket in the meantime) but public behavior can be changed.
It might be hard to believe, but on the inside, people like this are pretty easy to spot. Crypto people are weirdly bad at scamming, compared to other con artists, but because the amount of damage is so fast and liquidity so easy, incompetent people can do a lot of damage.
The scammers also the most vocal. Partially because they aren’t building something novel or valuable, and make up for it in marketing and flash. It’s also faster to build a con than to build a real product, so you see more of them
But yes. It is exhausting. Honest parties in the industry need to build against a large and growing negative reputation. It may be insurmountable. And the industry, generally, does nothing to punish these bad parties or self-regulate. The industry likely has to die, and be reborn after the token/blockchain era
Owning automation and high tech manufacture is likely important for the country. It’s too bad we have the absolute least qualified person and party to pull it off in charge
reply