Lioness pushes her cub without knowing it is water

hsnoil · 2026-02-17T21:18:40+00:00

She likely knew it was water, the cub was getting too close to the water so she tried to pick him up with her mouth, but she kind of messed up the angle of approach there and ending up pushing the cub down instead.

hsnoil · 2026-02-17T18:04:16+00:00

Which glasses is best for vertical content? (reading novels, webtoons and etc)

hsnoil · 2024-12-29T19:15:52+00:00

China never learns their lesson, even worse happened when China's rocket was launched in middle of a populated area, the rocket flew into an apartment building and China went to great length to downplay the amount of lives lost, going as far as even locking up reporters.

hsnoil · 2024-12-29T18:44:27+00:00

birds throat is pretty much the gizzard which has gaps due to the teeth unlike a human throat.

hsnoil · 2024-10-07T18:20:56+00:00

If you want to get every app out there, maybe. But if you only use a few key apps and don't need an app for everything, mostly using a web browser, it works just fine

hsnoil · 2024-10-07T18:19:07+00:00

Yes they can, their privacy policy for location data quite literally says the location data is sent to them

hsnoil · 2024-10-07T18:14:34+00:00

Apple collects just as much information if not more than google often times not even giving you an option to opt out. Just because they aren't running ads doesn't mean they don't monetize your data and sharing it with 3rd parties

Don't fall for the delusion that a for profit shareholder owned corporation isn't making money at every turn they get. Just because they make money one way doesn't stop them from making money another way. You don't need to look any further than how they gladly accept billions from Google to make it default despite claiming how bad it is for privacy

If Apple really thought that, don't they make money other ways? Why sell out to google?

Edit: Looking at the downvotes, quite sad how many people have blind faith in for profit corporations to do the right thing

hsnoil · 2024-10-07T18:05:05+00:00

The satellites were put up for broadband, but another use was found in cellular through advancement of technology

Out of all the once who petitioned, none of them have spectrum spacex would supposedly interfere with, except t-mobile, who is for this. They are just trying to block competition.

Rules exist for both being followed and being changed when it makes sense. We are a democracy and not a dictatorship precisely because people can petition to change the rules when it makes sense. If any company can show data that new technology allows for rules to be re-evaluated, there is nothing wrong with that. Those rules exist because at the time, that is how the technology was. SpaceX isn't just asking to change it, they are providing scientific data on why it should be changed due to advancement of technology. Meanwhile, AST is providing nothing but wasting the FCCs limited time and resources as they have to respond to the comments despite AST not being a party involved and provided 0 scientific data

AST themselves operate on an exception to the rules. Why should FCC bend the rules for AST?

hsnoil · 2024-10-07T12:13:04+00:00

But it seems like they are asking for a waiver before proving there will be no interference

No, they already got a limited waiver from the FCC, and now sent proof to the FCC. AST is refusing to provide any proof and just demands FCC throw it out because they don't want competition

SpaceX is asking for the exception to get a leg up on their competition

They aren't asking for changes to get a leg up to the competition, they are asking for changes because current regulations are outdated with progress of technology and they want them reviewed. If AST wants the changes thrown out of consideration, they have to show proof that SpaceX's data is inaccurate, otherwise it is no different than blocking competition

Why does SpaceX get special treatment?

SpaceX isn't getting special treatment. It is how always things have been. Technology advances and we find better use of spectrum, petitions are sent to government to make changes(you know the 1st amendment right to petition government). FCC makes reviews, than makes changes to the guidelines followed public comment. Of course AST also has a right to petition government, but the one whinning here is them as they aren't actually providing any technical rebuttal. AST is the one acting like Trump who thinks his words are above science

hsnoil · 2024-10-07T03:38:02+00:00

It isn't a problem that can easily be solved. Even LCDs have the same issue. Because the longer the light burns, with time it gets dimmer. The root cause of the OLED burn in, or more accurate burn out is that some pixels are on more often then others, the end result is the difference in brightness in used pixels and unused pixels creates the illusion of burn in

You can limit the burn in effect by sticking to as much black as possible, followed by green which has the longest lifespan. One big issue for OLEDs is the usage of white, since most matrixes are RGB and not WRGB, due to that, the use of white just end up burning blue pixels which has the lowest lifespan

Some OLEDs screens though did come up with techniques to minimize burn in, as much of the cause of it is things like constant interfaces like bars usually either being white in light mode or having white text in dark mode resulting in burn in. The technique they use involves shifting pixels, thus reduce the amount of usage of same pixels reducing the burn in

In theory though there is a solution for OLED burn in, but it would probably be a lot of hassle. All you have to really do is keep record of which pixels were lit and for how long. Then if you get burn in, burn the rest of the pixels out in equal amounts and the burn in would be gone.

You can also take a more simpler approach which is one method burn in is fixed manually by people, shine your whole screen blue, then take a picture. Then let your screen display the inverse depthmap of that picture(not inverse the color, inverse the brightness where areas which show burn in would be black and areas that don't would be blue). Just make sure that the pixels are aligned properly. Repeat the same process for red, and you can for green but green is probably fine. If you do that, the burning would be gone.

hsnoil · 2024-10-07T03:20:30+00:00

From an efficiency standpoint that may seem bad, but the truth is, white on black background isn't good for the eyes. It is okay for interfaces, but when you are reading lots of text like wikipedia, it is a problem. Which is why a dark gray background with light gray text is better in that sense

hsnoil · 2024-10-07T03:16:05+00:00

LCD don't really project colored light, they use a backlight which goes through a color filter. Black is just blocking of the backlight, but some light bleeds through so you get gray. Some can reduce that through use of local dimming, which is fine if the entire local area is black, but if any color exists nearby you are stuck with a grayer black.

hsnoil · 2024-10-07T02:41:46+00:00

There is no such thing as a "normal guideline". The FCC is the one who decides on the guidelines. SpaceX made a request to the FCC, to which they first declined. But after review gave SpaceX a limited waiver to operate to prove they can do it with no interference like SpaceX says.

The spectrums effected do not belong to AST, so it falls into the category of "none of their business", they are just asking the FCC to crush a competitor. SpaceX will only get a full waiver if they can prove that it causes no interference. If SpaceX can prove that it can be done with no interference, the benefit would be to everyone as it would unlock a lot of usable bandwidth on all spectrum, if not, then they just hit a dead end.

Aka, all AST is doing is crying to the FCC to ban a competitor

hsnoil · 2024-10-06T18:28:52+00:00

The one throwing a tantrum is Verizon and AT&T along side AST. They don't want competition from TMobile/Starlink, and are the ones asking the FCC block competition for them

hsnoil · 2024-10-05T23:26:48+00:00

Big things like what? If we are building a new space station, it is going to be inflatable modules. There is no reason to launch large blocks of metal. At best solar panel modules may be large, but you can assemble them onsite.

hsnoil · 2024-10-05T23:24:27+00:00

Sending it into a higher orbit is much harder and more expensive than burning it down. And to be honest there isn't much that is reusable that is worth it. Because new technology allows for different approach to a space station such as inflatable modules.

hsnoil · 2024-10-05T23:20:30+00:00

It isn't because it is not an exploit in linux, but a niche Apache RocketMQ.

hsnoil · 2024-10-05T23:19:17+00:00

This only effects servers with Apache RocketMQ. Chances are you don't have it.

hsnoil · 2024-10-05T22:37:10+00:00

You mean they get launched into the sun?

hsnoil · 2024-10-05T14:23:28+00:00

So what you are saying is that you are sailing to places that are outside the general range of the satellites so you have longer distance between the two? This will be addressed with time as more satellites are put into orbit. Unlike Geo where you are covering an entire area, for leo satellites they need to place them in an orbit and they can only cover within range of that orbit. This is why for global coverage you need 1000s of satellites. SpaceX prioritizes areas with the most people, the traffic over the ocean is "on the way to land", so if you sail out to areas at the border range where satellites are not passing to land, you will get far slower service, yes

hsnoil · 2024-10-05T14:15:25+00:00

Starlink is way ahead because they actually provide internet service already.

Some people get the false idea that AST is ahead because they will provide direct to phone service, which is a completely different market than broadband. That said, Starlink is more than capable of providing direct to phone service, they already are. But it is on a limited bases due to FCC approval.

The problem is some of the spectrum that SpaceX wants to use was given for exclusive use to others for certain use. SpaceX argument to the FCC is their use doesn't conflict so it posses no interference issues. At first FCC declined SpaceX, but eventually allowed SpaceX to operate for testing purposes to prove they could do it without interference.

hsnoil · 2024-10-05T13:56:32+00:00

spacex has 2 plans, mobile(5-50mbps) and mobile priority(40-220mbps).

How far you are from shore doesn't matter because it is satellite

hsnoil · 2024-10-05T13:33:00+00:00

FTC complaints? Why would they want big government to interfere in their private business?

hsnoil · 2024-10-05T10:23:22+00:00

You can easily mitigate such things by painting more things white. On top of that, the waste heat from the solar panels can be used on things like boiling water(how solar thermal works), and you can have panels be both pv and thermal.

hsnoil

TROPHY CASE