This true story moves us because it resembles much of human history, in which clever but powerless people struggle against morons -- morons who somehow gain control over a modern industrial state, then use that power to punish innocents who dare to assert simple human rights.
People in Moscow, in Gaza, in Tehran, in Minneapolis, are all saying, "How can I rise above this? -- where's my balloon?"
> Man, you really went ahead and tried to compare Minneapolis with Teharan.
It would help if you could spell "Tehran". Then notice that in either place you can be killed for annoying authority figures, without due process or recourse.
> This is got me laughing out loud.
I suspect that by 2028 you won't be laughing quite so loudly -- or at all.
A much simpler remedy is to plug a computer into the TV, then program the computer to show the desired / appropriate content. This would be much simpler than trying to design a remote control meant to circumvent a TV manufacturer's extreme dedication to removing a consumer's control over their TV.
This remedy only requires a Raspberry Pi and an HDMI cable. Also, disconnect the TV from the Internet.
> Open-source only matters if you have the time/skill/willingness to download said source (and any dependencies') and compile it.
Not really. The fact that an application is open-source means its originator can't rug-pull its users at some random future date (as so often happens with closed-source programs). End users don't need to compile the source for that to be true.
> Otherwise you're still running a random binary and there's no telling whether the source is malicious or whether the binary was even built with the published source.
This is also not true in general. Most open-source programs are available from an established URL, for example a Github archive with an appropriate track record. And the risks of downloading and running a closed-source app are much the same.
The kind of rug-pulling you describe only works if the software implements an online licensing check/DRM, and either way has nothing to do with security against malicious behavior.
> Github archive with an appropriate track record
How do you judge the "track record"? Github stars can be bought. Marketing can be used to inflate legitimate usage of a program before introducing the malicious behavior.
> the risks of downloading and running a closed-source app are much the same
But that's my point - open-source doesn't really change the equation there unless you are actually auditing the source and building & running said source. If you're just relying on a binary download you're no better than downloading proprietary software in binary form.
> The kind of rug-pulling you describe only works if the software implements an online licensing check/DRM, and either way has nothing to do with security against malicious behavior.
My point was that an open-source program cannot rug-pull its users without the obvious remedy of forking the project and removing the offending code. Open-source: commonly seen. Closed-source: not possible and often illegal.
For both options, you have to trust the source, which makes that a non-issue. You can checksum the Linux kernel to satisfy yourself that it came from a trusted source. You can checksum the Windows kernel to satisfy yourself that you're about to be screwed.
> But that's my point - open-source doesn't really change the equation there unless you are actually auditing the source and building & running said source.
In the open-source world, knowing how computers work is essential. In the closed-source world, knowing how computers work is somewhere between pointless and illegal. This is how open-source "changes the equation."
Modifying open-source code is welcome and accepted. Modifying closed-source code breaks the law. Take your pick.
> I thought the whole point was if it did exist the motion goes faster in one direction than the other.
No, the idea was that, in a space filled with the hypothetical ether, Earth's velocity through the ether should have been detectable by comparing light beams traveling in different directions.
The null result was very important -- it didn't prove the absence of an ether, it only showed that it wasn't a factor in light propagation.
Nice project! This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nBY4Y0bicM explains why the original interferometer was designed in the first place: to detect a hypothetical luminiferous ether, before Relativity theory made it unnecessary.
It's important to say the original interferometer was much less elegant -- there were no lasers in 1887. But it did have a solid stone "boat" floating in a little lake of mercury. Not making this up.
I'm very happy to see this account of what once passed for normal life. It serves as a reminder that doomscrolling, however addicting it may be, is not reality.
During my time hitchhiking across the lower 48 U.S. states (in the 1960s), I only had to learn one rule -- smile. All the rest followed from that.
Too bad -- the article doesn't mention Gauss. The Fourier transform is best presented to students in its original mathematical form, then coded in the FFT form. It also serves as a practical introduction to complex numbers.
As to the listed patent, it moves uncomfortably close to being a patent on mathematics, which isn't permitted. But I wouldn't be surprised to see many outstanding patents that have this hidden property.
Pretty sure in the USA you can patent mathematics if it is an integral part of the realisation of a physical system.* There is a book "Math you Can't Use" that discusses this.
> Pretty sure in the USA you can patent mathematics if it is an integral part of the realisation of a physical system.
Yes, that's true. In that example, you're not patenting mathematics, you're patenting a specific application, which can be patented. In my reading I see that mathematics per se is an abstract intellectual concept, thus not patentable (reference: https://ghbintellect.com/can-you-patent-a-formula/).
There is plenty of case law in modern times where the distinction between an abstract mathematical idea, and an application of that idea, were the issues under discussion.
People in Moscow, in Gaza, in Tehran, in Minneapolis, are all saying, "How can I rise above this? -- where's my balloon?"
Too many morons. Too few balloons.
reply