I actually knew someone who had a valve like that installed because her CSF pressure kept changing. Periods of high pressure were the most dangerous and led to rapidly deteriorating mental function—and eventually death.
The valve never really worked well, and she didn’t live long enough to determine why.
Regardless of what may have happened historically (and your claims are dubious, as others have pointed out), it really doesn’t make sense to suggest that the average person is capable of the degree of consent necessary for a long term relationship in their teens.
It’s one thing to acknowledge that we begin to develop a sense of sexuality and gender identity in our teenage or even preteen years, and to foster acceptance of that identity. It’s another matter entirely to suggest that this identity coincides with maturity and ability to consent. At that age, we’re still developing our sense of self and don’t fully understand the various components of intimacy, including consent.
It’s the difference between sex-positivity and sexualization. For whatever reason, our society seems to have a hard time understanding the difference beyond a few well-established scenarios. We understand that it’s healthy for parents to discuss sex and gender with their children: “use a condom,” “understand and respect that others may have different preferences than you, and that’s okay—likewise, you don’t need to follow the crowd,” “consent while intoxicated isn’t consent.” We also understand that it’s not healthy for parents to be actively encouraging their teens to get married.
But we seem to have trouble extrapolating that line into technology: is it okay for parents to be running these accounts? Are the children they represent capable of consenting to these images being published? Do we care that some of the consumers of these images are treating them as sexual? If there’s a likelihood that the images will be sexualized by some subset of the audience, is that a good reason to avoid posting them, and, if so, where is that line?
as of 1703035296:
ns1-39.azure-dns.com no longer has 192.168.1.0 for microsoft.com
1.1.1.1 still has 192.168.1.0 for microsoft.com
8.8.8.8 still has 192.168.1.0 for microsoft.com
76.76.2.0 no longer has 192.168.1.0 for microsoft.com
9.9.9.9 still has 192.168.1.0 for microsoft.com
208.67.222.222 still has 192.168.1.0 for microsoft.com
185.228.168.9 still has 192.168.1.0 for microsoft.com
76.76.19.19 still has 192.168.1.0 for microsoft.com
94.140.14.14 still has 192.168.1.0 for microsoft.com
First we wanted to see Microsoft update the authoritative nameservers, then move on to monitoring propagation. Conflating the two makes it difficult to monitor whether Microsoft actually fixed it correctly this time, as they appear to have screwed up their first attempt.
I wasn't attempting to address blame since I figured that was obvious enough.
archive.today isn’t associated with archive.org. It’s run by one guy who has a grudge against Cloudflare and gets angry when you use their DNS or anything that proxies your requests through Cloudflare, include iCloud Private Relay. You end up on a page that looks vaguely like a Cloudflare challenge, even though it’s his own doing and has nothing to do with Cloudflare.
If you’re on iOS, just open it in any browser other than Safari. Other browsers don’t get provided through iCloud Private Relay.
to be fair, I'd block visitors to my site if serving those visitors could result in legal action that would force me to take the site down. I hope I'd be a bit less juvenile about it, but it's not my site.
You would need iCloud Private Relay enabled to encounter the issue. Even then, you don’t get a say in which edge provider you get routed through: it may be Cloudflare, or it may be someone else (e.g., Akamai). It’s up to Apple.
The trouble is that most people who have it enabled don't realize. If you're paying for iCloud+, it's likely enabled.
I'm not suggesting anyone should be complaining to you, though--I'm just explaining why some people encounter issues visiting archive.today links and providing them with a workaround (disable iCloud Private Relay).
Superconductors will typically levitate if placed above a magnet, and vice versa. Magnets are weird--superconductors even more so. I assume that's what they were referring to?
Edit: Judging by Fig 4, which has a large object conspicuously labeled "magnet", that's probably what they're referring to.
This whole experiment is quite reminiscent of an experiment I did in high school. We synthesized a high temperature superconductor (IIRC it was YBCO) by grinding some powders together with a mortal and pestle and baking the result. And we stuck it in a little cup of LN2 and floated a magnet on it. It really works!
This group used somewhat nastier powders, they had to cook parts of it in a vacuum, and they floated the result on a magnet instead of vice versa. And it only floated a bit. But they did it without any cooling!
A while back, there was a leak of some sort whereby many of these pole cameras in Massachusetts became accessible to the public. While this is anecdotal, it seemed to me at the time that the cameras were more than capable of peering through windows, as though someone were standing on the sidewalk with binoculars. The cameras themselves were concealed so they looked like utility equipment.
I think they did their math wrong. If we assume an iron operates at 1000 W (probably about right), then 21 hours of ironing is 21000 Wh, or 21 kWh. Someone probably got a little confused and ended up off by a couple orders of magnitude.
