When I want to focus past something that is obscuring my view.
Wolf314159
joined 11 months ago
Are you 100% certain it's not a cell phone tower?
These are often just appear as a sheet metal pillar from the outside. If you see a small windowless concrete hut surrounded by a fence somewhere on the property, the church could be leasing to a telecom and hiding the antennas inside their oversized idol. Icing on the cake is that this is often a method the telecoms use to hide their operations from local municipalities so that they can avoid taxes until caught.
Not the parent commentor, but I do something very similar with Tasker. Whenever my phone disconnects from one of a list of Bluetooth connections (like my watch or my car) or even if it just gets a solid jolt to the accelerometers, it goes into lockdown mode. This means the screen gets locked and biometrics can no longer be used to unlock it, requiring the entering of a PIN code to unlock.
2fa: No issues, as I can easily migrate to a different device.
How exactly? This ability would seem to negate any benefit or security of multi-factor authentication.
The comment I left t here no longer relevant because parent and child revised their comments after the fact. This is not a healthy way to have a discourse people.
Is your abuse of the ellipsis and dashes supposed to be ironic? Isn't that a LLM tell?
I'm not even sure what the ('phrase') construct is even meant to imply, but it's wild. Your abuse of punctuation in general feels like a machine trying to convince us it's human or a machine transcribing a human's stream of consciousness.
Who is out there wiping their ass with %100 ethanol?
Since you seem to be comfortable citing the codes, what about the space between those studs? I thought it had to be a little less than the 2 feet we seem to see here.
- Embrace
- Extend
- Extinguish
It's been the Microsoft Business plan since practically the beginning.
Don't get it twisted. I'm not taking the question any more seriously than anyone else in this thread (including you).
The flaw in the logic of your plan didn't require any serious analysis. If you think it did, then "Thanks for the compliment, I guess."
No, the question was "How do you [prove that your from the future]?" You laid out a scheme, which you are likely not capable of doing, especially because you missed the bit about the terrifying complexity of that particular proof.
Wiles' demonstration of Fermat's simply stated proposition is more than a hundred pages of complex math involving such esoteric concepts as Selmer groups, Hecke algebras, elliptic curves, modular forms, Euler systems and Galois representations. 350 Years Later, Fermat's Last Theorem Finally Proved
view more: next ›
Except my point was actually that ANY automated system WILL occasionally produce an error, or focus on the wrong thing in this case. And that was a specific response to your specific comment, not a critique of any attempt at automating parts of a system that will be an extension of my body. In my experience, it's better for my parts to favor reliablity over perfection in design anyway.