shortwavesurfer

joined 1 year ago
[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 3 points 4 months ago

Started using Linux in 2010 on a virtual machine on a Windows XP machine that was really not meant to run it and it was God awful. But I knew that it was the virtual machine not Linux itself. After that I was using my laptop for school and a Windows update completely broke it and I absolutely had to use it for the next class that I was going to in like five minutes and I had a flash drive with a live Linux environment already on it and so I just used that. However, once I was done with class that day, my first thought was why should I even go in and attempt to fix this Windows machine when Linux has been working fine for me all day. And so I just went ahead and wiped the disk and ran the installer. And I've been using Linux ever since. I do generally keep a Windows virtual machine around, just in case, but it's extremely rare that I've ever needed to use it.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

None that I'm aware of. I guess it's possible, but I have not seen it be the case yet.

Edit: I can tell you for a fact that the ones I'm listing are legitimate. And if you don't believe me, try purchasing one with the multi-signature escrow.

https://xmrbazaar.com/user/shortwavesurfer2009

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

It's also used to buy baking pans, dove soap, coffee makers, and toasters. Xmrbazaar.com

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Firefox gets tons of funding from Google, and their code is quite frankly humongous. From what I understand, it's extremely hard to get the gecko web view engine to work. In another browser, unless it's a fork of Firefox, unlike Chromium where you can just redesign an entire browser around it.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 3 points 4 months ago

Fair enough, there's some really golden information in this thread.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

What about those military things that they use to disperse crowds? Where it makes you feel like your skin is cooking, but it's actually not. I feel like that uses high power and high frequency radio waves to accomplish that.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 5 points 4 months ago (6 children)

The higher the frequency, the worse that is. So standing very close to an HF antenna that only broadcasts up to like say 30 megahertz is different than standing next to a 700 megahertz cell phone antenna, which is different from standing next to a 2.5 gigahertz cell phone antenna. The reasoning for that is due to power levels and wavelength of the radio signal itself.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 8 points 4 months ago

You know, that's a good point. I didn't even think of that. But you're right.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 29 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Mind crossposting this to !t_mobile@lemmy.ml?

Also, they will lose. The FCC has said that the companies can build towers where they are needed for coverage. They might have to make it look like a tree or something, but they cannot be rejected from building it.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I actually prefer to buy mid range phones that are brand new instead of buying phones that are a few generations old just because I know that with a new device the battery is new and I treat my batteries very well like only charging to 80% and so on. So I'm a lot more likely to buy like the Pixel A series or like the Motorola G series and such than I am to buy the latest Pixel flagship or whatever.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, that one is beyond me as well.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sprint would have failed without the merger and we would have had three carriers anyway so it doesn't matter whether they merged or not and in fact it's probably better that they did because it caused T-Mobile's service to improve dramatically since then. I knew friends who had T-Mobile back in 2012 and it was a joke. I had T-Mobile in 2016 and it was only okay.

1
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by shortwavesurfer@monero.town to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
 

I can't seem to find an actual currency estimate of how much privacy is actually worth. I see a ton of articles talking about why privacy should be worth more to people or what people would pay for privacy services or how much people would sell their privacy for, but I don't see anything that gives a value for the privacy industrial complex, so to speak. Like if you take every company and non-profit and everything else and throw it all together, how much is the privacy industry actually worth?

Edit: It's worth at least $2.8 billion US dollars because that is the market cap on average of the privacy-focused cryptocurrency Monero.

Edit 2: If you put Monero, Zcash, and Dash together, you come up with $3.4 billion US dollars.

Edit 3: All the above plus Signal, Proton and EFF bring it up to 3.5 billion.

 

2.4GHz wifi is not suitable for two big reasons, interference and low bandwidth. 2.4GHz wifi in any kind of suburban or city environment and sometimes even in rural will be congested with other networks, microwaves, other appliances, etc causing massive speed degradation or fluctuations. The range of 2.4GHz is just too large for all the equipment that uses it in today's world. In my previous apartment complex for example my phone could see 35 distinct 2.4GHz wifi networks while only 3 at max can operate without interfering with each other. In that same building i could only see 13 5GHz networks. Which brings me to the second issue of bandwidth

2.4GHz at least here in the US only has channels 1, 6, and 11 that will not interfere with each other. if anyone puts their network between these three channels it will knock out both the one below and the one above. Channel 3 would interfere with both channels 1 and 6 for example. By going up to 5GHz you have many more free channels, fewer networks competing for those channels, and higher bandwidth channels allowing for much higher throughput. 2.4GHz allows 40MHz wide channels which in isolation would offer ~400mbps, but you will never see that in the real world.

Personally, i think OEMs should just stop including it or have it disabled by default and only enable it in an "advanced settings" area.

Edit: I am actually really surprised at how unpopular this opinion appears to be.

view more: next ›