- 1 Post
- 358 Comments
Oh, I am not alone with that? Yes.
Eheran@lemmy.worldto
Privacy@lemmy.ml•Printers leave a watermark on each page indicating the exact printer that it came from. Are there any other examples of these privacy violations that aren't common knowledge?
31·2 months agoSo you just want to say things you believe and not tell others why you believe them and even dislike being asked?
Eheran@lemmy.worldto
Privacy@lemmy.ml•Printers leave a watermark on each page indicating the exact printer that it came from. Are there any other examples of these privacy violations that aren't common knowledge?
11·2 months agoThere is still no connection. How should there be one?
Sure with easy numbers multiplication is easy. Try anything else.
Eheran@lemmy.worldto
Privacy@lemmy.ml•Printers leave a watermark on each page indicating the exact printer that it came from. Are there any other examples of these privacy violations that aren't common knowledge?
162·2 months agoThere is no connection from a random printer you buy somewhere anonymous to you. They can “only” verify something was (not) printed with that printer.
That is my favorite of all of them! Yes!
Relevant xkcd on an xkcd?
Because he experienced data loss, as he says?
What about data safety, backups etc.? If someone has access to my PC, that is already pretty catastrophic.
Eheran@lemmy.worldto
Today I Learned@lemmy.world•TIL about Adolphe Quetelet, a pioneering statistician who developed the BMI among other things and played a key role in the development of EugenicsEnglish
2·3 months agoWhy is this tagged as NSFW?
I post the picture because it gets the point across, not because that is “my teacher”. The point is that you can choose smart any random regression function and they all fit just as “good”.
Take a look at these examples of regression. See how any one of the conclusions is absurd? Mind you the data in that example is far less random!
The data does not support the conclusion. A simple “no” is okay. Take a look at these examples of regression. See how any one of the conclusions is absurd? Mind you the data in that example is far less random!
Oh that can absolutely end in a desaster. Like not breaking when driving a car when you absolutely should.
guess the correlation, looks about like a solid 0.1. Whoever put that regression line in there is crazy, the confidence interval is insulting.
The centrifuge would not run like that, it noticed the vibrations and turns off. They had that “feature” for decades now.




What is there to memorize about it? The 16 binary values? What is that useful for?