The job with the HVAC company came to an end shortly after she posted the video. Her employer told her it had nothing to do with her performance, but was a head office decision due to a downturn in business, she said.
Sounds more like she was fired for revealing they pay an unlivable wage
In the Wikipedia page there's this formula
Just plug in values for the fence voltage and led. You can just set vswitch to 0 and Vled to 2V. It should be fairly insignificant compared to the fence voltage. It should be 10-20mA (0.01-0.02) to not kill the led.
The root of this is Ohms law: V=IR. Diodes cause a voltage drop rather than directly acting like a resistor which is why it's subtracted from the input voltage.
Just put them in series. Make 2x, one in each direction to account for AC and DC
There's lemmy 411 for trying to find relevant communities
I think he meant to reply to the main thread (which he did with the same comment) but didnt delete this (or maybe it didnt federate?)
Not related to the article, but this seems to have posted twice; is this a double post bug? Or did you manually submit it the second time (i.e. first time errored out)
There are companies that do this with IDs but they are typically already global corporations or SSL certificate authorities already. One example is Verisign and another is Globalsign. Their products are unsuitable however because it connects your real identity to the account. It could be useful for a one time humanness verification though.
The main goal would be to decouple the humanness check from Lemmy and give it over to an authority meant just to create certificates which cannot be linked back to the person. You could probably rate limit each person after the human check for creating new certificate.
One issue would be trust because you would need to trust the authority saying that the person who created the certificate was human
I literally addressed this. My point is that we'd need to give personal identifying information to be 100% sure, so the best way at the moment would instead be to just verify humanness as best as possible (e.g. better captcha, AI/chatgpt response detection, etc.) and shift the account sign up to the authority's side.
Also "trusted organizations handling your data" is exactly how 99% of the modern internet works. Rarely if ever do we give thought to the fact that companies like Verisign exist, nor that people regularly give credit card information to websites. At the same time, companies and corporations arent just some random schmuck spinning up their own authentication service
Thats not even accounting for all the bots, alts and inactive accounts; it wouldnt surprise me in the least if the majority of those were bots or throwaways. Another benefit of lemmy's setup is that individual servers will be fairly small so theres tons of space for smaller communities with higher quality discussion, even if it does end up causing duplicate communities across instances.
A public/private key pair is more effective. Thats how "https" sites work. SSL/TLS uses certificates to authenticate who is who. Every site with https has a SSL certificate which basically contains the public key of the site. The site can then use its private key to sign all data it sends to you, and you can verify that it actually came from them by trying to decrypt it with their public key. Certificates are granted by a certificate authority, which are basically the identity service you are talking about. Certificates are usually themselves signed by the certificate authority so that you can tell that someone didnt just man-in-the-middle-attack you and swap out the certificate, and the site can still directly serve you the certificate instead of you needing to go elsewhere to find the certificate
The problem with this is severalfold. You would need some kind of digital identity organization(s) to be handling sensitive user data. This organization would need to
Be trusted. Trust is the key to having these things work. Certificate authorities are often large companies with a vested interest in having people keep business with them, so they are highly unlikely to mess with people's data. If you can't trust the organization, you can't trust any certificate issued or signed by them.
Be secure. Leaking data or being compromised is completely unnaceptable for this type of service
Know your identity. The ONLY way to be 100% sure that it isnt someone just making a new account and a new key or certificate (e.g. bots) would be to verify someone's details through some kind of identification. This is pretty bad for several reasons. Firstly it puts more data at risk in the event of a security breach. Secondly there is the risk of doxxing or connecting your real identity to your online identity should your data be leaked. Thirdly it could allow impersonation using leaked keys (though im sure theres a way to cryptographically timestamp things and then just mark the key as invalid). Fourth, you could allow one person to make multiple certificates for various accounts to keep them separately identifiable, but this would also potentially enable making many alts.
There may be less agressive ways of verifying individual humanness of a user, or just preventing bots as in that 3rd point may be better. For example, a simple sign up with questions to weed out bots, which generates an identity (certificate / key) which you can then add to your account. That would then move the bot target from various lemmy instances, solely to the certificate authorities. Certificate authorities would probably need to be a smaller number of trusted sources, as making them "spin up your own" means that anyone could do just that, with less pure intentions or modified code that lets them impersonate other users as bots. That sucks because it goes against the fundamental idea that anyone should be able to do it themselves and the open source ideology. Additionally, you would need to invest in tools to prevent DDOS attacks and chatgpt bots.
There most certainly exists user authentication authorities, however it wouldn't surprise me a bit if there were no suitable drop in solutions for this. This in and of itself is a fairly difficult project because of the scale needed to start as well as the effort put into verifying users are human. It's also a service that would have to be completly free to be accepted, yet cannot just shut down at risk of preventing further users from signing up. I considered perhaps charging instances a small fee (e.g. $1/mo) if they have over a certain threshold of users to allow issuing further certificates to their instance, but its the kind of thing I think would need to be decoupled from Lemmy to have a chance of surviving through more widespread use.
200; It's pretty hard to play if you're dead
Anyone who thinks differently is not for you. People can do almost whatever they want for fun, as long as it's legal. Labeling someone childish because they like something is stupid; what am I going to do, drink all day, go to bars, hike, travel, play sports, do n'th paid activity, etc? Some people have the time, money or health that allows or disallows them to do these things, and some people do or don't have the interest. Tons of people enjoy watching tv shows. Are we supposed to grow out of that too? By that logic, we shouldn't enjoy anything we did as kids and just do things only relegated to adults.
Id say most people regardless of when they were born think like this unless they themselves play games. It's more socially acceptable amongst the younger generation right now (e.g. college graduates) and probably because they're still considered young. Kids have more free time than adults and the barrier to entry for them is low. Parents often see their kids playing games and in genral have a negative attitude towards them for consuming time. Id say as people go into their 30s and 40s its considered less acceptable because societal expectations are that people will work and get married and have kids by then, and they'd have less time for solo activities. Going to the bar while having young kids or other activities is less acceptable. As kids get older their parents have more time for fun, but playing games is seen as childish because they either see their kids playing or because its something from their own childhood and other ventures that cost money like travel are now available to them when they werent as kids
Can you? Yes
Should you? Probably not. High resistance and bad contact
The topic is multifacedted and I cant pretend to understand it fully, but to speak of some aspects as I understand them
There is a large gap between societal and cultural expectations of men, and the financial and realities for everone at the moment.
One part of societal expectations of men is that they expected to be independent, capable of getting and holding a job that pays well enough to buy a car, own a house, etc. The current reality is that many men are in debt after a university degree, have a hard time finding a job because 99% of applications get rejected outright, and get paid significantly less accounting for inflation and costs compared to their predecessors. It is impossible for the average person to afford a house on the typical wages these days without already having a significant other or by pooling resources. This has led to a large number of people who live at home and have less money to spend on things like going out.
I say this as someone who is fairly well off given my job and field, I get paid ~2x what some of my friends do and I could not afford a house within a 2hr drive of my workplace. I live at home with my parents and it fucking sucks.
Another aspect of bad cultural expectations is that men are expected to be cold unfeeling lone wolf types, and the idea that any sort of male bonding is "gay" which has caused people to spend less time doing things with friends. Men end up with smaller social circles and with less friends. With increasing costs and long working hours, they end up with little time to actually hang out together.
An additional aspect of the failure of cultural expectations to adjust the need to place blame. Blame has fallen on the individual man for being, among other things, lazy good for nothings, who are weak, ugly, etc.
If we look at the US, they have been abandoned by the left, both by the democrats (e.g. economy is fine, must be your fault), by the feminists (told to be vulnerable but called weak for being vulnerable, shunned at every instance because "sounds like a you problem" and "figure it out yourself") and by their own parents who had an easier time.
This is part of why the manosphere became so popular. Men have been told for so long that they were the problem, many of them still just boys, whereas right wing pundits like jordan peterson, andrew tate, joe rogan, etc gave them targets to redirect blame. An excuse for "actually, its not my fault I cant find a date, its the woman's fault," etc. Note that this is not my personal belief. It also gives them a sense of community and people talk to that actually listen and make them feel heard and justified in their struggles.
The blame game has caused us to ignore several important systematic factors. The rise of individualism, stagnant wages relative to inflation and costs, and growing wealth inequality, as well as the erosion of community and mens safety nets are all major factors which have decreased mens mental health and increased male loneliness.