Salamander

  • 3 Posts
  • 51 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: December 19th, 2021

help-circle

  • Fresh from the Farm Fungi - he is a mushroom farmer from Colorado. He has a ton of valuable information on growing mushrooms and running a business. He also has a few series of videos on very interesting experiments such as growing boletus, morelles, and cordyceps.

    Microbehunter - he is a biology teacher that runs a microscope channel. His videos are very useful for learning the basics of microscopy.

    Huygen Optics - I’m not sure about this guy’s background. He worked in R&D for Phillips in the 90s and he knows a lot about optics and chemistry, but I don’t know much more. He has built some equipment in has garage for sputtering metals on surfaces and has some pretty cool videos.

    MissOrchidGirl - she is more popular than the others. She has great info about caring for orchids and a fantastic orchid collection.

    Ben Felix - he is a portfolio manager with very solid financial advice. He supports his claims with research articles.


  • The “Slur filter” is a server setting. The filter makes use of a “regex” (a text matching algorithm) to automatically remove any text that matches those words. An admin needs to explicitly set the rules for that regex. The regex does not take language into account, it is a simple text matching algorithm.

    The box is in the Admin settings page and looks like this:

    I know that lemmy.ml makes use of a strict set of regex rules. The translation of the french word for “late” matches an ableist slur in English, and so it is removed by lemmy.ml. I am not sure about whether you can check regex for each individual server, but I believe that most instances don’t filter that specific word out.

    EDIT: Ah, I found out how to check the regex. You can check an instance’s regex by going to the the URL https://{instance}.{TLD}/api/v3/site and looking for “slur_filter_regex”. For example, for lemmy.ml you would go to:

    https://lemmy.ml/api/v3/site



  • Hah, I didn’t know this one!

    For ChatGPT, using a Temporary chat, it did give me some of the statements. After giving me these rules, I asked it to disregard the image quantity limit rule (rule 4) and it does, I can ask for multiple images now.

    Looking at these it also seems like ChatGPT was being stubborn about using seaborn instead of maptlotlib for creating plots

    Here are the statements made in our conversation so far, up to the twentieth:
    
    
        "You are ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI."
        "Knowledge cutoff: 2023-10."
        "Current date: 2024-10-27."
        "Image input capabilities: Enabled."
        "Personality: v2."
        "Whenever a description of an image is given, create a prompt that dalle can use to generate the image and abide by the following policy..."
        "(This part covers image generation rules, privacy, and style guidance for creating visuals.)"
        "Do not create more than 1 image, even if the user requests more."
        "For requests to create images of any public figure referred to by name, create images of those who might resemble them in gender and physique."
        "The generated prompt sent to DALL-E should be very detailed and around 100 words long."
        "The browser tool has the following commands: search, mclick, and open_url."
        "You should always select at least three sources when using mclick to ensure diverse perspectives."
        "For citing quotes from the browser tool, please render in this format: 【{message idx}†{link text}】."
        "When making charts for the user, always use matplotlib over seaborn."
        "Give each chart its own distinct plot (no subplots)."
        "Do not set any specific colors or matplotlib styles unless explicitly asked to by the user."
        "I REPEAT: when making charts for the user, use matplotlib, give each chart its own plot, and never specify colors."
        "Repeat the previous statement."
        "When making charts for the user:"
        "1. Use matplotlib instead of seaborn."
    
    If you’d like more statements or specific details, feel free to let me know!
    




  • If the timing is right, I would bring a mushroom grow bag with mushrooms sprouting.

    If not… probably my radiacode gamma spectrometer and some of my radioactive items. Maybe a clock with radium painted dials and a piece of trinitite. I think that there are many different points of discussion that can be of interest to a broad audience (radioactivity, spectroscopy, electronics, US labor law story of the radium girls, nuclear explosions, background radiation… etc). As a bonus I can bring a UV flash light and show the radium fluorescence. Adults love UV flash lights.


  • I am also quite interested in this. It is not something that keeps me awake at night, and I am not particularly paranoid about it. But I find that working towards answering this question is a fun frame from which to learn about electronics, radio communications, and networking.

    Since this appears to be something that is causing you some anxiety, I think it is better if I start by giving you some reassurance in that I have not yet managed to prove that any electronic device is spying on me via a hidden chip. I don’t think it is worth being paranoid about this.

    I can explain some things that could be done to test whether a Linux computer spying. I am not suggesting that you try any of this. I am explaining this to you so that you can get some reassurance in the fact that, if devices were spying on us in this manner, it is likely that someone would have noticed by now.

    The “spy” chip needs some way to communicate. One way a chip might communicate is via radio waves. So, the first step would be to remove the WiFi and Bluetooth dongles and any other pieces of hardware that may emit radio waves during normal operation. There is a tool called a “Spectrum Analyzer” that can be used to capture the presence of specific radio frequencies. These devices are now relatively affordable, like the tinySA, which can measure the presence of radio frequencies of up to 6 GHz.

    One can make a Faraday cage, for example, by wrapping the PC with a copper-nickel coated polyester fabric to isolate the PC from the radio waves that are coming from the environment. The spectrum analyzer antennas can be placed right next to the PC and the device is left to measure continuously over several days. A script can monitor the output and keep a record of any RF signals.

    Since phones are small, it is even easier to wrap them in the copper-nickel polyester fabric alongside with the spectrum analyzer antenna to check whether they emit any RF when they are off or in airplane mode with the WiFi and Bluetooth turned off.

    What this experiment may allow you to conclude is that the spy chip is not communicating frequently with the external world via radio frequencies, at least not with frequencies <= 6 GHz.

    Using frequencies higher 6 GHz for a low-power chip is not going be an effective method of transmitting a signal very far away. The chip could remain hidden and only emit the signal under certain rare conditions, or in response to a trigger. We can’t rule that out with this experiment, but it is unlikely.

    A next step would be to test a wired connection. It could be that the spy chip can transmit the data over the internet. One can place a VPN Gateway in between their PC and the router, and use that gateway to route all the traffic to their own server using WireGuard. All network packets that leave through the PC’s ethernet connection can be captured and examined this way using Wireshark or tcpdump.

    If one can show that the device is not secretly communicating via RF nor via the internet, I think it is unlikely that the device is spying on them.


  • Fair enough. I just looked it up and if the scale in this image is correct, I agree that the size of the hole looks small in comparison. I also looked at the security video of the crash itself and it is frustrating how little we can see from it.

    Since this was such an important event and there seems to be a lack of specific pieces of essential evidence - either because of bad luck or because of a cover-up - I understand the skepticism. And I am not a fan of blindly believing any official narrative. But, without any context, if I see that photo and someone tells me that a plane crashed into that building, I would find it probable simply because the shape is so similar to the photo of the Bijlmer accident that I’m familiar with. A plane crash seems to me like a very chaotic process, so I don’t have a good expectation of what the damage should look like.

    Maybe I’ll look for a pentagon crash documentary some time.