Not the parent commentor, but I do something very similar with Tasker. Whenever my phone disconnects from one of a list of Bluetooth connections (like my watch or my car) or even if it just gets a solid jolt to the accelerometers, it goes into lockdown mode. This means the screen gets locked and biometrics can no longer be used to unlock it, requiring the entering of a PIN code to unlock.
2fa: No issues, as I can easily migrate to a different device.
How exactly? This ability would seem to negate any benefit or security of multi-factor authentication.
The comment I left t here no longer relevant because parent and child revised their comments after the fact. This is not a healthy way to have a discourse people.
Is your abuse of the ellipsis and dashes supposed to be ironic? Isn’t that a LLM tell?
I’m not even sure what the (‘phrase’) construct is even meant to imply, but it’s wild. Your abuse of punctuation in general feels like a machine trying to convince us it’s human or a machine transcribing a human’s stream of consciousness.
Who is out there wiping their ass with %100 ethanol?
Since you seem to be comfortable citing the codes, what about the space between those studs? I thought it had to be a little less than the 2 feet we seem to see here.
It’s been the Microsoft Business plan since practically the beginning.
Don’t get it twisted. I’m not taking the question any more seriously than anyone else in this thread (including you).
The flaw in the logic of your plan didn’t require any serious analysis. If you think it did, then “Thanks for the compliment, I guess.”
No, the question was “How do you [prove that your from the future]?” You laid out a scheme, which you are likely not capable of doing, especially because you missed the bit about the terrifying complexity of that particular proof.
Wiles’ demonstration of Fermat’s simply stated proposition is more than a hundred pages of complex math involving such esoteric concepts as Selmer groups, Hecke algebras, elliptic curves, modular forms, Euler systems and Galois representations. 350 Years Later, Fermat’s Last Theorem Finally Proved
It didn’t come together like a granny knot, which I understand to be just a square knot with the orientation of one half flipped. The knot I learned wrapped the free end around the base of a loop and pulling a section of that free end through it to create another loop. It was unbalanced for the same reasons as a granny knot though and probably very similar.
The knot I tie now is basically a square knot where the “top” half is formed from two loops. Admittedly the knot I tie now, would have been much more difficult for toddler fingers than the knot I learned as that toddler.
I bought SUSE Linux once upon a time. It was a physical CD and the packaging that I paid for. Maybe a little support was bundled, probably not. That was a time when the internet was slow for most and not an option for others, wifi wasn’t ubiquitous (and if it existed, good luck getting the proper drivers loaded without internet), live distributions weren’t really a thing yet, booting from usb was finicky and unreliable, and the install CDs would have the entire OS and basically all the software you could want to install bundled. These would have been the days before the fall of Napster and the rise in other “Linux ISO sharing tools”. Ubuntu would even mail you like a half dozen physical CDs and some stickers just for asking and promising to share them in your community.
There’s nothing wrong with buying the physical things or paying for support. That’s not what this meme is showing though.
Bunny ears or a variant thereof is usually more stable anyway. I taught myself a new better way to tie my shoes at 30 something. Now I no longer need to double knot themand they always come undone easily by pulling the ends. Previously, knotting them the way my parents taught, my knots always came undone and the loops didn’t lay flat on either side (getting skewed to up and down my foot/leg).
normal shirt buttons, which come off fairly regularly.
Maybe your technique isn’t sufficient and the posted method isn’t as “over the top” as you claim, but fundamental to not loosing buttons.
Classic Microsoft Business Strategy
More to the point, even if the vehicle can seal completely and keep the water out, very few bodies of water that deep would be any safer to traverse in a car for other reasons. Most significant of these I think is the force of water pushing on the vehicle laterally. Claiming that a consumer vehicle can ford rivers or creeks up to 31 inches deep WILL get people killed regardless of how well the designed the vehicle. Don’t drive through flowing water or even still water through which you cannot clearly see the bottom unless you’re prepared for things to go very badly very fast.
Drugs alter your perception, not awareness. Mediation and a philosophy class you didn’t take on YouTube will cure you of that confusion.
Key lime juice also makes for a very interesting margarita.
Was that supposed to be coherent or relevant? Are you lost?
Are you 100% certain it’s not a cell phone tower?
These are often just appear as a sheet metal pillar from the outside. If you see a small windowless concrete hut surrounded by a fence somewhere on the property, the church could be leasing to a telecom and hiding the antennas inside their oversized idol. Icing on the cake is that this is often a method the telecoms use to hide their operations from local municipalities so that they can avoid taxes until caught.