Cethin

That level of complexity and precision is not needed for distributing daylight.

But that’s my point. The data thing isn’t relevant. It’s just transmitting light. The fact it can transmit data doesn’t means that’s what it’s for. It just transmits light of any intensity.

It’s a lot easier to just run some cables than install specialty ducts though. It doesn’t need as much space and you also don’t need to worry about being in straight lines. You just run the cable wherever you want and the light ends up there. Fiber optic cables effectively are just tubes with mirrors, except they dynamically adjust to whatever shape they’re in. If you’ve got a short path to the outside, sure, do the duct, although you might as well just do a window. If it’s to the interior of a building, especially if it’s already constructed, fiber optic cables are the only reasonable option.

And what is a table but a big turtle made of wood?

Yeah, it isn’t good for 2FA, and obviously your data is being collected. If all you need it for is job applications though, it does that.

There is an on and an off state. Either the light is on or the light is off. That’s how it translates into binary. Literally that’s what binary data is: a single data-point is either on or off.

Not really. Yes, binary is on or off, but how the signal is read is it has a threshold for on/off. This is true for light, with fiber optics, and also electricity. The universe doesn’t work on binary. We say “if the signal value is > X, do Y”. Electrical engineering actually has to handle variability in the signal, while computer science just pretends it’s actually binary.

Fiberoptics would technically work, but it’s more material than you need because it would require running fiberoptic cables everywhere instead of just using hollow chromed tubes. Also, the quantity of light it can receive and transmit is limited to the thickness of the cable.

I’m not just making up hypotheticals. If your idea were better it would be used. Fiber optics to transfer light is actually a thing that’s done. Here is a company selling that product, and there are many others, but I’ve also seen things about large structures using a custom solution too. It literally does work and is actually done in reality.

Well, the reason it’s good for data transfer is the same reason it’d be good here. The properties of the cable means it’s flexible and transmits light down the cable with little loss, and it’s also pretty cheap. Light exiting the cable if reflected, because of the material properties, so it bounces down the path easily. A duct with mirrors doesn’t have this property. You’d have to make sure the mirrors are angled correctly, and it’d only work if the light is collumated, so it’s all traveling parallel and not spreading out.

Fiber obtic cables, again, are just transferring light. They don’t have an on or off state. It’s just light. It isn’t just used for data transfer. It’s just good for that because it’s flexible and transmits light with little loss, and little spread. Light that comes in one end almost all comes out the other end, no matter how it bends on its path. This also means it’s great for something like transferring light in a building. You don’t need perfectly aligned mirrors that would decay in effectiveness with dust. You just run some cables from a skylight to where you want light, and it’ll come out the other end.

You can transfer data without fiber optics. It can be done with mirrors, just like your idea. The problem is that this system runs into a lot of issues. It is only done for data transfer in very specific circumstances, where you can’t have a direct connection usually, because of this. The same issues would happen here (with a little less concern, because we don’t care about data integrity, only quantity). All this is to say, fiber optics are great for transferring light where you can’t have a straight line, not just for data.

That still requires getting personal information about the user, which is often enough without 2FA. 2FA still makes it more secure than not having it. It’s still a vulnerable step though, so users should be aware of that.

Just a heads up, you can get a free phone number from Google, and probably other providers. If you’ve got a computer of some kind and an internet connection, you can make calls and texts from there. If that’s all you’re getting a phone for, don’t bother with the actual device.

https://support.google.com/voice/answer/115061?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop

I have seen at least plans, and I think it’s actually been done, for using fiber optic cables connected to a skylight to transfer sunlight to rooms that otherwise wouldn’t be able to have any.

Nothing about fiber optic cables are about data specifically. It’s just a cable that transmits light in a very similar way a tunnel with mirrors would (but better). It happens to be very useful for data, but it’s just sending light through it that’s interpreted as data at the other end.

It’s an electric rat, but it isn’t even close to Pikachu. Anyone who’s saying it is isn’t being honest.

Anyway, you ignored the entire point of the comment. Inspiration is perfectly legal. Making something reminiscent of existing artwork is protected. If it weren’t, making anything would be illegal.

I’m not supporting them. I played the game and I don’t really care for it. I just know that it isn’t illegal to make art that resembles someone else’s, as long as it isn’t trying to be passed off as theirs. Yeah, they’re style is similar. No one is debating that. That’s not illegal though. If it were, Nintendo would be sueing over that, but they aren’t. Either you think you’re smarter than Nintendo lawyers or you’re just trying to be obnoxious.

If it comes to that point, there will still be ways to get software that gets around it. It might require a physical transfer from somebody, but they can’t ever cover 100% of the options. Black markets will always exist, and Anarchist or hacker groups would probably help you for free.

Anarchist is considered libertarian left, while what we typically call Libertarian is libertarian right. Yes, Anarchist is libertarian, but with an emphasis on the welfare of people, while libertarian right is usually about the freedom of businesses to exploit the people.

This is a stupid argument. First, the ESRB is not the dictator of who plays what games. They are a recommendation group. Parents may want to consider what they say, but it should not be left at that. For example, sexual content is much worse than violent content in their eyes, and I’m sure we all agree that’s stupid.

Second, kids play CS and TF2. We all know this, and Valve knows this. That’s not a bad thing, even if they’re rated M. I don’t think they do any harm, and CS at least probably does some good, with learning teamwork and stuff. Valve then uses their platform to push gambling, which is wrong (it’s psychologically manipulative, when they could just sell skins outright without manipulation) regardless of age, but particularly bad if they aren’t trying to prevent kids from participating, and they aren’t.

I love that you have nearly a 50% downvote rate because you had the gall to call Valve out for doing the thing we all know they’re doing.

Back in the day, when the banks came to reposses people’s houses, their neighbors would block them from getting to them. They can’t take it all if we don’t let them. Ownership is possession, not what’s written on some document somewhere. If you can’t come possess it, you don’t actually own it, do you?

I agree that we’ve lost some “education” in conflict handling. For example, I think people should get their asses kicked for doing things society doesn’t agree with, like neo-Nazis. That can’t really happen anymore because there’s too much surveillance, and it’s technically illegal. Things like the “no tolerance policy” have made this worse too, where defending yourself is the same as attacking someone.

On you’re question of learning to deal with ignorant assholes, no, I think I’d rather have parents that support me, because there’s already far too many ignorant assholes who will treat them poorly. There’s no need for a parent to add to that. They’ll learn that lesson soon enough, if they haven’t already. If they could choose one or the other, then sure, your option is better. They don’t though. They will be bullied and mistreated for it outside of the home. The least that could happen is for them to be able to come home and be welcomed for who they are without judgement.

I think you’re missing the point though. If you actually don’t give a fuck, and it would be something that they appreciate, why not change what you call them? Isn’t that the right thing to do? If it actually cost you something then fine, there’d be an argument to not do it. Also, if you cared about it then there’d be an argument to not do it. Since you’ve said you don’t care, why not just do it? If you can make your kid just a little happier, at no cost to yourself, why wouldn’t you take that opportunity?

I wish I could say you’re being selfish, but you aren’t even doing that. It doesn’t benefit you to not change. It’s just spite I guess. You think it effects who you are to be nice to your child in a way that doesn’t effect anything else.

Yeah, we don’t know what the reality of the situation is. We only know what you’ve said. What you’ve said though is uncomfortable to hear. I don’t like hearing about parents choosing to not do things that make their kid’s life a little easier for absolutely no reason. If you actually don’t care about what your child is called, and if you care about doing what’s right for your child, then change. It’s free, and I’m reasonable sure your child will appreciate it, probably more than you could realize. They obviously still want to be around you and don’t want to make you uncomfortable, so return the favor.

I never said you were. I said that you’re responsible for your actions. Your action in this is helping Nintendo. This effect is something you own, and you can’t push it off on others. What you do with that is on you.

There is no Pikachu in the game. While it does take inspiration from Pokémon certainly, that is perfectly legal. Imagine the shit hole the art world would be in if you couldn’t take inspiration from previous works. Their argument is about mechanics, and their mechanics aren’t particularly unique anyway.

Well, I think at this point most of them come from whatever object was in a designer’s field of view at any given moment. Some are from folklore, but many are just random pieces of furniture, or things like that.

If you can help it, you shouldn’t. It promotes the games to a wider audience if they get views/likes/comments. Nintendo doesn’t deserve that free marketing, and you engaging with it makes it more effective.