Making prey less scared of the predator makes them significantly more likely to be eaten by that predator.

The reality is even worse than “seeking out cats” because it means if it does this in humans, (which it appears to do) those among us who get infected will engage in all manner of risky, dangerous and destructive behaviors.

The problem with filling up a ssd is that it writes and rewrites the same blocks over and over defeating the built in wear leveling.

Filling an ssd creates the one situation where nand wear out is a problem.

The SSD firmware is smart enough to rotate the hot sectors over the entire space gradually.

It is a problem to have a full SSD from a performance perspective. Modern SSDs use pSLC (psuedo-single-level-cells) because they can write much faster. When you write to an SSD, you generally write in pSLC mode first, and once the data goes cold, it will get written back to MLC/TLC storage.

Once you are very full, pSLC gets disabled or becomes less effective, affecting write speeds.

There is also an effect known as write amplification that is exacerbated when a disk is nearly full. You want to write 4kb, but the available erasure zones are all full (either valid or invalidated sectors), so now the SSD has to erase a 4MB zone and compact the data there (along with your new 4kb) to write your 4kb.

This gets even worse when you have a filesystem that isn't SSD optimized, such as EXT4. It will cause further write amplication.

Keep your SSD's <80% full if you want good performance.

Won't modern wear leveling migrate rarely written data to spread new writes out to its blocks?

Can’t. Some asshole convinced us to allow them to frame advertising as speech to get it protected by the first amendment. Clever. Tragic, but clever.

If you ask me advertising is manipulation, specifically designed to convince you to buy things you don’t want or need (if you want it or need it advertising is literally not necessary). But I’m not the boss and we have things like the constitution guiding what we can and cannot do.

It's difficult to see a good faith argument where advertising isn't speech protected by the first amendment, that doesn't put other forms of speech in peril. One could argue that all religious and political speech is manipulation specifically designed to convince you of positions you don't want or need. What is the news media if not advertising a point of view? Every movie, television show, book, song is trying to manipulate your emotions and advertise itself, or an artist or author. It can get really slippery, really fast.

They like to say that but it’s not true. The constitution still applies.

Here’s the thing. We live in a democracy. We get to decide how far our government goes. This one is a bridge too far. So stand up and say so.

Pretty sure this qualifies as destruction of data (at least it is a supported mechanism according to NIST data destruction guidelines.) I don’t have the link handy but I quick google should confirm

Technically it was the agent putting in the duress password that erased the phone.

The phone wouldn’t have been erased if it hadn’t been illegally searched.

This study might be missing some long-term thinking and testing of common knowledge.

It is known among farmers that cats reduce rat PRESENCE. the study concludes that cats don’t kill enough rats to reduce rat POPULATIONS (which is entirely different). Rodent control is not about killing rodents it’s about keeping rodents away.

The hypothesis to test would be that rats avoid areas with cats because it makes their young less safe. (A cat discovering an unattended nest containing rat kits will certainly go badly for the rats). I’d like to see the total rat counts in the area of study before arrival of cats and after. I’d guess from what I’ve seen that the population counts would be wildly different than can be accounted for by cat kills.

Why is that a problem? It’s entirely consistent with religious ideology to trust in god.

You don’t get to have it both ways, telling people not to worry and trust in made up crap for one thing and then getting all facts and science just because your own life is on the line.

The real problem here is the hypocrisy.

“3-year-old warrant she says she didn’t know existed and stemmed from a dismissed misdemeanor charge”

I’m guessing this stunt will cost the city something like $2M, too bad the assholes responsible will face no repercussions whatsoever.

You, the citizens are on the hook for what your police do. Perhaps you’d like to push for more of a say in HOW they do what they do. For one thing wouldn’t it be nice if a citizen review board could fire those fuckers? Behavior changes real quick when there are consequences. Which I think is the whole argument for policing in the first place.

Given the:

> The panel's endorsement of peptides was a striking rejection of the FDA's stance against them.

I'm guessing these are all political appointees?

i thought you were refering to the admin in charge of the FDA