Haven't there been stories of parent's losing their phones because their kids randomly entering in passcodes forced the exponential time outs to be into the years (and longer) time frames?
The lockout period progresses something like 60 seconds, 5 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, 6 hours, 1 day and so on. This should only be possible if the child had sole possession of the phone for days. Not saying it’s impossible, but this appears to be an extreme edge case.
I suspect most of these reports come from either bugs in the software (and some quick Googling suggests this has been the case), or perhaps that even someone (heck, even a savvy child) was trying using some sort of brute force exploit to unlock the phone.
I can see it happening. My 1.5 year old daughter routinely locks me out of my phone by touching the in-screen fingerprint reader when she takes my phone from the desk or wherever it's lying around at home.
I have a password the maximum length allowed so it's not trivial to unlock when she does that.
According to the description “The quad copter was described as approximately 5 feet long by about 3 feet wide, with a single green flashing LED light.”
This could simply be mischief with an off-the shelf, gasoline, quad copter with upgraded long range radios. Flashing green strobe would be an FAA navigation light -- if viewed from the other side you would see a flashing red.
All of the natsec and domestic spying theories would be nullified by the thing having nav lights.
> Also entirely possible they used some stock parts and just didn't realize the LED was there.
I only think an amateur would make that kind of mistake. If it was from a hostile power with any kind of competence, I think they would have extensively tested it in simulated operational conditions. If they didn't notice the light when they initially built it, they would have probably noticed it during testing.
You overestimate the human ability to account for all conditions. For example, perhaps they did all of their testing in the middle of bright sunlight and simply did not see it?
I can imagine the conversation in an evil war room: "We are doing illegal stuff, but still, let's not go as low as to remove the flashing light. We have morals!" :))
Green is close to the center of the visible light spectrum. If somebody wanted to track it visually from a great distance, (perhaps from a nearby mountain?) this would make it easier to spot.
This would be beneficial for a two person team. The drone operator watching the video feed and a spotter providing positions of pursuit aircraft.
It was night, it seems pretty unlikely that anyone could make any good observations of the size or shape. When someone points a green laser at some clouds you will observe an object with a green light.
I didn’t understand the comment I replied to and was trying to say “that’s a big bat.” Pop culture references go over my head more than they likely should.
Because it's the equivalent of web developer abstraction creeping into the desktop. First it was electron, now containers. These people do t know how to architect, how to design, nor how to secure applications.
If I write an article today about someone who transitions next year, am I (and all articles) supposed to spend time updating it? Wikipedia is a different story
You could but you, obviously, don't have to. The problem is not about the content though, it's about linking to it. So someone linking to this old article if there are recent, better sources could very well be doing it maliciously.
Think of it this way: if someone linked to an old article that used some slurs that used to be mainstream-acceptable at some point but aren't any more, would you feel uncomfortable? I hope you would. The reason people don't have this visceral reaction when it comes to trans people has a lot to do with broader lack of understanding of non-cis minorities.
There's an obvious problem with figuring out what the intentions of someone writing are. And we absolutely can't tell if e.g. someone dead naming is doing it on purpose or not. Not knowing and willing to learn is absolutely fine. But since you can't tell oblivious from malicious, you have two options: ignore assuming innocence or ban assuming malice.
Internet discourse is not courtroom, you don't have to assume innocence and it's absolutely fine to have a higher standard for communication on Reddit. Not that I think Reddit does, but it could. ;) So, again, what should you do with misgendering or dead naming? Since I sympathize with minorities and the oppressed, I would ban. But I'm absolutely sure many, many people would find a way to label what I'd considered hate speech "a freedom of speech issue" so I'm not at all surprised that this is causing a stir over on Reddit.
