000, 666 and 900-999 are invalid area numbers and any digit group of all zeros is also invalid. Thanks for playing!

I am making a slightly different point and have a bias to this perspective: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/19230.pdf

I am saying that an SSN can be part of a larger validation scheme, not the only key to the castle. Specifically for government sites, SSNs can be linked to IRS data to verify places of last residence. A person generally needs to verify multiple items that are referenced by the SSN before basic authentication can be established and set by the user. (This is part of the full Authentication, Authorization and Access Control triad.)

An SSN is just a broad level identifier. If you look at many laws around the release of SSNs, the redaction is usually in place to prevent the linking of different documents and other data points.

If I released my SSN in this chat, I could be fully doxxed in a matter of seconds. It’s mainly because there are many legal systems in place that use an SSN as a primary key, of sorts. (It’s a bit more than that, as SSNs can be duplicated in some circumstances.)

So to say, at a high level, an SSN is considered private is absolutely correct. However, it’s so easily referenced and obtainable it really isn’t fully private either.

If I was to generate a full list of every possible SSN in the US (which I have done, multiple times), that list is effectively useless to anyone who obtains a copy of it. So, by itself, an SSN is effectively public.

SSNs are generally considered public information but how the SSN is linked to other information is usually the more difficult bit to find and it’s generally pay-walled. (Any jackass with a business license and a credit card can usually buy background check information for ‘hiring’.)

But no, it shouldn’t be solely used for authentication. That is just dumb. However, it can be used as part of a larger verification and validation scheme while building authentication/authorization profiles. In most systems that I have seen that use full or partial SSNs, it is always linked to several other identifiers that need to match.

Oh, was I using the correct lingo for hundred year old methane powered shit gushers? I had no idea. Lol!

use spent oil reservoirs

Ok, that lead to some giggles thinking about some company drilling in the future thinking they were about to hit a strangely untapped oil field.

Add a hundred years of methane pressure build up and that could be really interesting gusher.

You could probably map resonance artifacts, but you have to isolate layers that were printed at the same speed and direction. However, the second you tighten a belt or screw, that pattern will change and I am not sure how consistent resonance patterns would be on a bed slinger. (The quantity and density of printed plastic may change the resonant characteristics of the entire printer. This may be less of an issue on a core xy.)

Thinking waaay outside the box… In some cases, I have seen extruder gear marks on the filament create artifacts on a print. Every gear pattern should be unique, but measurable differences would probably be micron or sub-micron.

Maybe you could map the surface of textured beds as I seriously doubt that those patterns would be consistent and more prone to randomness from the factory.

There are a ton of conditions that could generate unique artifacts on a print, now that I think of it. Hell, even a printers PID tuning can leave visible and repeatable errors.

They should probably find a way to turn humans into mice. It’s a shame to leave billions of dollars on the table like that.

That comment is pure gold and I am archiving it for future use.

I looked into that and the only question I really have is how geographically distributed the samples were. Other than that, It was an oversampled study, so <50% of the people were the control, of sorts. I don’t fully understand how the sampling worked, but there is a substantial chart at the bottom of the study that shows the full distribution of responses. Even with under 1000 people, it seems legit.

In this study, we conducted a survey (n = 742) including a representative U.S. sample and an oversample of gender minorities, racial minorities, and disabled individuals to examine how demographic factors shape AI attitudes.

I have been using 6ghz for about a year or so now and I found it to be quite fast. MLO can be super weird sometimes and seems to get confused, but it works. (It’s probably just a driver I haven’t updated.)

There seems to hundreds of studies on that and there seems to be a fairly uniform “Yes” and “More than you would guess”, etc.

Here is one: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3233/ADR-220062

B is for Buy n Large (and billionaire) your very best friend.

It looks like the site is just AI generated crap based off of blog posts it scraped. “Cyber Security News” is about as generic as it gets.

And it’s about a mile? Many common rifle bullets will be starting to nope-out of supersonic around that distance, so you would need something really beefy, like a .338 Lapua or even a .50 to be accurate. (A bullet will generally start tumbling when it drops sub-sonic.)

Don’t mistake me: many bullets can and do travel past a mile regularly, especially depending on the shot angle. Yeah, they can still kill. I am referring to the uncertainty and inaccuracy at those ranges, especially if a bullet has lost a ton of speed.

My main point is that long range sniper rifles are quite large caliber and generally require long heavy barrels. You aren’t going to swing one of those around without being noticed.

The shot speed approximation is the easy part, believe it or not. Since the bullet must be a large caliber you can guess at about 200-300 grains for a “smaller” large caliber bullet, or between 650-900 grains for a larger one. (Maybe a few more, but I am sticking with a 338 or a 50.) Muzzle velocity is also going to be on the high end at between 2900fps and +3100fps for most all of them. The math is easy to work out with a common ballistics calculator by estimating the ballistic coefficient of available bullets in the category we are talking about. (Bullet speed at the target is the most important number to calculate.)

Still, it’s not perfect math. If you look for a camera flash at an estimated time when a bullet was supposedly fired, you are probably going to find one, especially if you have a second or two of footage across multiple cameras.

The layers are almost invisible with this tech. The custom adult novelty business will go crazy over this.

It’s worse. We are reverting back to the age of lügenpresse and hearsay comes in short-form video formats.

Many people simply do not care (or are even aware) if a source is trusted if the message aligns with their own bias or the message is presented as a new “fact”. Trust is irrelevant, unfortunately.

“real” is subjective.

Second this.

Resins have a typical use-time for within a year. Some may last longer, some may not. Some may start to show exposure issues. Some just start to separate or solidify partially. Some resins don’t care at all. (It should be written somewhere on the bottle when the resin was made and when it should be used by.)

This is a helluva “unknown variable” you are working with, is my point. Resin is the absolute core of any printing functionality (obviously) and print settings are highly dependant on the resins qualities.

Just because I am so damn picky during my testing and learning process, I would abandon testing with that resin completely and be thankful it even printed a calibration test at all. (I would get a fresh bottle, is what I am saying.)

However, in the interest of using the resin, I would YOLO the exposure time (increase it) and start printing prototypes or other strange experiments. There is a bunch of things I could test even if using a sub-optimal resin.

You could spend time with the rest of that bottle and tweak the settings into partial-perfection. How reusable are those settings for future bottles though?